Peacock Tales
Volume 19, Number 4 · October 2009Brief Notes
Church and State Debate Still Very Much Alive: The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, recently held that a public elementary school did not violate a mother's or her child's First Amendment free speech rights when it restricted the mother from reading Bible passages in her child's kindergarten classroom. The reading was part of a curricular show-and-tell type activity in which the students and their parents were invited to offer readings of the students' favorite stories.
Protecting the Attorney/Client Privilege: Even though e-mails between a client and her attorney were sent via the client's employer's computer, and the employer's handbook indicated that private e-mails would become company property, a New Jersey state court found that the e-mails were still protected by the attorney/client privilege where they were sent through her personal, password-protected Web-based e-mail account. In an employment discrimination case, the employer was required to return all copies of the e-mails to the employee.
Blowing Smoke: A Minnesota appellate court upheld a conviction of a bar owner for allowing his customers to smoke in violation of a law prohibiting smoking in public places. The defendant argued that his smoking customers wore name tags that stated 'Actor' on them, and were engaging in improvisational theater, thus falling under an exception in the law allowing smoking for theatrical performances. The court found that the alleged performance had no costumes or directors, was not set apart from the bar area, and except for the name tags, was no different from the activities that took place at the bar before the smoking ban.
I Went to a Fight and a Hockey Game Broke Out: A hockey player, playing in a no-check hockey league, sued another player for injuries sustained when that other player allegedly illegally checked him into the boards during a league game in Dauphin County. The Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that even in a no-check league, the offending player must have engaged in 'reckless conduct,' not just merely 'negligent conduct,' to be liable for injuries to the other player, taking into consideration the risks of the game, the ages and physical attributes of the players and other factors involved in the incident.