Recently, a New York court limited a defendant’s access to an injured party’s social media accounts and postings. In Kregg v. Maldonado, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, the defendant requested all social media accounts used or maintained by the plaintiff, who was involved in a motorcycle accident.

The defendant sought the “entire contents” from the plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts and any internet postings made in connection with those accounts. The plaintiff objected on the grounds of relevancy and stated that the request for the records was a “fishing expedition.”

The Court ruled that the defendant’s request was overbroad. In this case, there was no issue that any information in the social media accounts contradicted the plaintiff’s claims for damages. Instead, the Court held that the defendant needed to narrowly tailor its request to social media information that relates to the claimed injuries from the accident.

We have warned in many blogs on our website that defendants in personal injury cases demand access to a party’s social media accounts. This case, while correctly decided in my opinion, is another warning that anything you write or post on the internet may be discoverable in your case – and used against you.

Fighting for your rights in a New Hampshire car accident case takes an experienced lawyer. If you or someone close to you has been injured, please call Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out on online contact form.

By Jason R.L. Major – New Hampshire Civil Litigation Attorney

A lot of clients we represent at Douglas, Leonard & Garvey involve claims against municipalities. Many of the claims are employment-related, and many are related to police misconduct. Litigating against government defendants involves challenges that do not arise in more difficult than making a claim against a private organization, because towns and cities and their officials are shrouded in many layers of immunities from suit. The included so-called “official immunity,” “discretionary function immunity,” “qualified immunity,” “ ” and others.

Recently, municipalities have been asserting a claim for immunity under RSA 507-B. RSA 507-B is a statute that was enacted to regulate claims against municipalities. It was enacted in the wake of a 1974 N.H. Supreme Court case captioned Merrill v. Manchester. In the Merrill case, the Supreme Court struck down “blanket” immunities protecting municipalities that had their roots in the old concept of “sovereign immunity” – literally that “the king could do no wrong.” However, the Court allowed the State Legislature to enact reasonable limitations on suits against municipalities, including damages caps. RSA 507-B was the Legislature’s attempt to put the Court’s “reasonable limitations” into practice.

Unfortunately, RSA 507-B contains some poorly worded sections that, when read together, could be read as prohibiting any claims that were not based on a municipality’s use or maintenance of its vehicles or premises. Of course, if the statute were read that way, it would lead to the unreasonable sort of “blanket” immunity that was struck down by the Supreme Court in Merrill. Nevertheless, municipal defendants have seized upon the confusing language of the statute in an attempt to shield themselves from liability.

Plaintiffs with claims against the municipalities have recently turned the tables though. In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, captioned John Farrelly v. City of Concord, et al., Magistrate Judge Landya McCafferty ruled that the defendant’s “blanket immunity” interpretation of RSA 507-B was wrong, and held that the City defendants did not have immunity from suit under this section. The defendants in that case have requested that the District Court certify a question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court asking whether the District Court’s interpretation of the statute is correct.

In another case before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Huckins v. McSweeney, et al., Judge Joseph DeClerico has decided to certify to the New Hampshire Supreme Court the question of whether the Town of Sanborton’s “blanket immunity” interpretation of RSA 507-B is constitutional. The plaintiff in this case is represented by Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold its decision in Merrill v. Manchester and rule that the defendant’s interpretation of RSA 507-B is incorrect and, even if the statute could literally be interpreted as the defendants wish, that doing so would lead to an unconstitutional result.

This is good news for plaintiffs with claims against municipalities. In a few months there will likely be one less immunity hurdle to overcome in order to successfully obtain recoveries in their cases.

If you think you have a case against a municipality, please contact Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our online contact form to see if one of our experienced civil litigation lawyers may be able to help you.

By Charles G. Douglas – New Hampshire Employment Law Attorney

With the changing demographic nature of our nation’s population, it was inevitable that at some point a white employee would be able to claim harassment because of her race. In a case earlier in September this year the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced a settlement by a former assistant prosecuting attorney in Hawaii who claimed she was discriminated against because she was white.

The prosecutor, Ms. Weigel, had worked on the island of Kauai in an office where her supervisor continually made disparaging comments that Weigel needed to “assimilate into the local culture.” She was told to dump her white boyfriend in favor of a local man.

The supervisor would talk about how staff who were white had to stop acting the “haole” way and act more like the local Hawaiians. The workplace harassment rose to such a level that the tension between Ms. Weigel and her boyfriend caused them to break up and she ended up moving back to the mainland.

The County agreed to compensate her $120,000 and to establish policies and training to make sure that whites would not be subjected to harassment.

The discrimination laws cut in both directions and it is obvious that as workforce populations change, racial discrimination victims may change with it. We represent employees of all types who are discriminated against in the workplace. If you feel you have been discriminated against, please contact one of our employment attorneys at 1-800-240-1988 or complete our online contact form.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) protects employees from being fired, demoted, or denied promotion based on physical or mental disability. Questions about ADA protections often arise when an employer uses physical or mental tests or evaluations to make hiring or promotion decisions.

The basic rule is that employers may use medical tests or exams when the physical or mental characteristic being tested is related to the job to be performed and is a business necessity. For example, fire fighters typically have to pass periodic physical tests to ensure that they are capable of performing the physical work required for their job. A fire fighter who is unable to carry hoses, breathing apparatus, and other equipment is unable to perform the main function of the job. That kind of physical test is permissible.

What is not allowed, however, is for employers to test their employees for characteristics that are not directly related to the job. For example, it is completely irrelevant if a telephone operator is unable to run a ten-minute mile. Testing a physical limitation when the job does not require physical skills violates the ADA.

A closer call can arise when employers use mental evaluations to establish personality traits. These tests are becoming more and more common during the hiring phase and even when employers consider candidates for promotion. Psychological tests that measure personality traits, such as honesty, preferences, and habits are permitted. However, psychological tests that are designed to identify a mental disorder or impairment are medical examinations and are prohibited by the ADA.

Employers may have many reasons to want to know about an employees medical or psychological condition. Some of these are valid and others violate the ADA. Determining whether a particular test is allowed under the law requires a complicated balancing of factors. If you have questions about physical or mental tests or examinations at work, you should consult with an experienced employment lawyer.

If you are having problems with an employer requiring you to take tests, please contact us at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our online contact form to see if we can help.