Sharp Law Firm, P.A.

Woman alleges Nextaff discriminated against her because of her disability

Thu, 12 May 2016 23:13:00 GMT

FORT LAUDERDALE – A former employee alleges a Lauderhill business wrongfully terminated her instead of accommodating her medical needs.

Gloria Walker filed a complaint on April 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division against Nextaff LLC alleging that the former employer violated the Florida Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was working as a crossing guard for Broward County Schools and suffers from diabetes and complications from several strokes. On Feb. 11, 2015, she alleges she submitted a note to her superior from her doctor stating that due to her change in medication, she may need frequent bathroom breaks. The next day, the suit states her superior called and said she should go home until further notice. She alleges was terminated without notice on Feb. 12, 2015. As a result, she has suffered a loss of pay and benefits and other intangible injuries, according to the suit.

The plaintiff holds Nextaff LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability. She alleges was told that she was terminated because of her doctor’s letter and that the company could not use her anymore.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks declaration that defendant’s conduct violated FCRA, an order to reinstate her, or award front pay in lieu of reinstatement, compensation for punitive damages, attorney’s fees and such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper. She is represented by Christopher C. Sharp of Sharp Law Firm PA in Fort Lauderdale.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division Case number 0:16-cv-60831

Original Article

The post Woman alleges Nextaff discriminated against her because of her disability appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Year-old Lauderdale employee complaints still being investigated

Mon, 01 Jun 2015 23:31:00 GMT

A year after more than two dozen city employees raised allegations of discrimination and a hostile work environment, they’re still waiting to hear if the city will do anything about their concerns.

A consultant’s investigation authorized by City Manager Lee Feldman was originally projected for completion by November, but no report has been released yet, following interviews of affected employees in the Public Works Department’s engineering section last fall.

Mayor Jack Seiler said that’s because some of the employees filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in October, so producing a report wouldn’t be appropriate given the pending litigation.

Seiler said he’s aware that “remedial actions” have been taken, but aren’t being disclosed because of the EEOC litigation.

“Their concerns have been addressed. I can’t tell you their concerns have been resolved,” Seiler said.

But Feldman said the consultant’s report is still being worked on and expects it to be completed within 60 days, at which time he expects it to become public. He will then review it and “take what, if any, appropriate actions are deemed necessary,” city spokesman Chaz Adams said.

The situation wasn’t discussed in Feldman’s recent evaluation by city commissioners, who plan to award him a 3 percent raise Tuesday. Feldman’s current salary is $219,690. A 3 percent raise would be an additional boost of about $6,590, bringing his salary to $226,280.

Commissioner Romney Rogers lauded Feldman for “his ability to change the culture in a positive way.”

Chris Sharp, an attorney who first brought the Public Works Department employee concerns to the attention of commissioners, said he would have expected “prompt, effective remedial action” and was initially encouraged by the city’s response to the allegations. But he said he’s heard nothing since.

“You certainly can’t say this has been prompt,” Sharp said.

Sharp initially became involved last year with the 26 employees, many of whom said they were told they were going to be laid off. They also complained about harassment by their supervisors.

The city quickly dismissed employee concerns about being laid off, describing it as a misunderstanding. Officials have not yet said anything about allegations of harassment, bullying and unwarranted disciplinary actions by supervisors.

The consultant, Rosilyn Dickerson, was hired to investigate those claims in August. She is employed by the city on a full-time, temporary basis until her report is complete at an annualized salary of $104,000.

Commissioner Bruce Roberts said he has stayed in touch with Feldman on the issue. Roberts said he’s been told part of the reason no report has come about is because of settlement negotiations involving the EEOC complaints that were filed, but Sharp said no one from the city has been in touch with him.

The city has begun implementing a new system in the engineering section, retraining the employees and making them “project managers” instead of engineers, then putting them on six months probation in their new positions. Officials have said the employees can return to previous job classifications if they don’t clear the probation period.

Original Article: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fort-lauderdale/fl-fort-lauderdale-city-manager-raise-20150601-story.html

The post Year-old Lauderdale employee complaints still being investigated appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Employee forced to show mastectomy scars after FMLA leave — or get fired

Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:01:00 GMT

The latest FMLA lawsuit to gain prominence shows the expensive danger of failing to incorporate some form of flexibility in return-to-work policies. In the case, an employee wanted to return to work, but her employer wouldn’t let her until she underwent an unusual medical exam.

Broward Health, which runs hospitals in Broward County, FL, has a policy that requires employees who’ve missed work due to surgery to submit to a medical examination of their wounds before being allowed to return to work.

Broward takes this policy very seriously. In fact, its strict adherence to the policy is well documented in a new lawsuit brought against Broward Health by Andrea Santiago, who worked for the employer as a social worker until she was fired.

What happened?

According to Santiago’s lawsuit , she was granted FMLA leave after she informed the employer that she needed a mastectomy resulting from her breast cancer.

After taking less than a month of FMLA leave, Santiago was cleared by her doctor to return to work.

Santiago knew about the return-to-work policy, as she had her breasts examined by Broward Health’s in-house medical clinic following an earlier biopsy. She claimed the examination by her employer was “demeaning and humiliating.”

So following her mastectomy, Santiago asked if the exam requirement could be waived. A Broward nurse she spoke to indicated that the requirement might be waived if Santiago could provide a note from her doctor declaring that she had no open wounds or sutures.

Santiago then submitted such a note to Broward. But the employer refused to waive the exam requirement. Santiago then tried appealing to the medical clinic’s management — again having no luck with anyone she spoke with.

During this process, Santiago even gave Broward permission to speak to her doctor about her condition. That had no effect. Broward officials still insisted she submit to the exam.

Santiago finally took her waiver request to Broward’s head of HR, who also told her she’d need to submit to the examination. Santiago then countered by saying she’d done some research and found that the policy violated both the ADA and the FMLA, and that she “did not want to have to hire an attorney.”

Broward still didn’t budge.

Santiago then got her attorney to submit a letter to Broward, explaining that the return-to-work policy violated the FMLA.

To that, Broward’s attorney responded with a letter of his own, reiterating that the policy would not be waived.

Submit or else

Santiago was then informed via a separate letter that she had until March 18, 2015 to submit to the exam or be terminated.

When she failed to submit to the exam by that date she was sent another letter stating that she had voluntarily resigned from her position.

On April 3, Santiago sued Broward health, claiming FMLA interference and retaliation.

Her claims have yet to be heard, but this case is a good example of what can happen when employers fail to bend even a little in the return-to-work process.

Broward’s desire to make sure employees returning to work don’t have open wounds that could affect patients’ health is certainly understandable. But, having only Santiago’s lawsuit as a guide, it certainly seems Broward could’ve found some wiggle room in its policy — by at least discussing Santiago’s condition with her doctor for starters.

That kind of flexibility can do wonders in the courtroom — or keep you out of one altogether.

Even if Broward wins the case, it now stands to lose a pretty penny. Fighting a case like this isn’t cheap.

Original Article

The post Employee forced to show mastectomy scars after FMLA leave — or get fired appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Return-to-work policy at heart of woman’s lawsuit against Broward Health

Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:58:00 GMT

doctor’s note didn’t suffice for a former Broward Health employee who in a lawsuit claims that the hospital system’s return-to-work screening policy violates the Family Medical Leave Act.

Andrea Santiago, 36, filed a lawsuit against Broward Health on April 3 after the hospital system declined her request to waive a health screening required for her to return to work after a double mastectomy.

Under Broward Health’s policy, employees who have been out of work for three or more days due to illness of any kind must be seen in the Employee Health Department for a clearance for duty, according to the Broward Health Human Resources Administration Policies and Procedure Manual.

The policy further requires employees with open wounds, sutures or staples to obtain approval from the medical director of Employee Health Services in order to return to work. The purpose of the policy, according to the manual, is to provide a safe and healthy work environment for employees, patients and visitors.

Santiago had been working as a medical social worker for Broward Health for about 2 1/2 years when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in January. She took an approved leave in February to undergo a double mastectomy, according to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court’s Southern District of Florida.

When it was time for Santiago to return to work at the end of February, she asked that the required physical exam by Broward Health personnel be waived, according to the lawsuit. In lieu of the exam, she provided Broward Health with notes from her doctor stating that she had no open wounds or sutures.

In emails to Santiago’s attorney, the hospital system explained it could not waive the exam. Broward Health extended the deadline for Santiago to comply with the policy and asked that her attorney advise whether Santiago would undergo the screening and continue her employment with Broward Health.

When the new deadline passed without Santiago’s compliance, she lost her job.

When asked for comment, a Broward Health spokeswoman said in an email that the hospital system “does not comment on issues which are in active litigation.”

Santiago said her employer lacked compassion and empathy during “a very difficult time for me.”

“You wake up and your body is different,” she said in a phone interview. “I didn’t want to show [my breasts] to someone who I might see in the cafeteria.”

As a medical social worker, Santiago worked with patients, often times in geriatrics, and their families to coordinate the next step after leaving the hospital.

Santiago’s attorney, Christopher Sharp, said in a phone interview that the policy, which applies to all Broward Health employees, is over-inclusive, badly written and inconsistent. He said that as a social worker, Santiago only interacted verbally with patients and posed no risk of airborne infection.

“[Broward Health] cannot articulate a business necessity to make [Santiago] undergo this examination,” Sharp said in a phone interview.

In a March 5 letter to Sharp, Broward Health’s attorney, Michael Mattimore, said the law provides that employees may require additional medical examinations if such examinations comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. He said the provisions regarding medical examinations of employees are applicable to all employees regardless of whether they are considered disabled under the statute.

“Due to the nature of services provided by Broward Health, ensuring a safe and healthy work environment is a business necessity that permits medical examinations under the ADA,” Mattimore said. “In addition, medical issues such as open wounds, sutures and staples present a direct threat of preventable infection both to our patients and to the employee herself.”

In a March 17 letter, Mattimore addressed Sharp’s argument that Santiago should be exempt from the physical examination because of her lack of interaction with patients.

“I have inquired into the essential job duties of Ms. Santiago and they require considerable direct therapeutic treatment with patients, families and visitors,” Mattimore said.

“[The policy] requires that all employees returning from leave due to any illness or injury — FMLA-qualifying or otherwise — must first undergo a health screening by a registered nurse or advanced registered nurse practitioner with oversight and final approval by the medical director of Employee Health Services,” he said.

Sharp said notes from Santiago’s surgeon should have been sufficient for work clearance and “the employer is not entitled to a second opinion under the [Act].”

Original Article

The post Return-to-work policy at heart of woman’s lawsuit against Broward Health appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Fort Lauderdale public works department employees file complaint about ‘toxic’ work environment

Fri, 10 Oct 2014 23:11:00 GMT

A group of Fort Lauderdale employees filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , saying the public works department is a “hostile, toxic and bullying work environment.”

Employees older than 40 get demoted and disciplined for no reason and don’t get promotions, separate complaints from three employees say.

Black employees are discriminated against, too, the complaints say. They are “singled out and subjected to unprofessional and humiliating behavior” including “loud ranting, berating, demeaning and abusive language,” one says.

The EEOC will next determine whether to investigate the complaints.

The three are among the 26 employees who also filed a complaint with the city’s own Office of Professional Standards in June.

That complaint says public works employees started having problems in mid-2013: younger employees are treated better; older employees’ positions are frequently shuffled; instructions on how to do things are unclear; managers are unprofessional, rude and “unwilling to make timely decision[s].”

“This creates a counterproductive working environment, and it started to affect our ability to perform our duties,” says the complaint. “It saddens us to see that instead of concentrating on completing the projects we spend considerable amount of time on answering accusatory emails and trying to get clear directives on what needs to be done to move the projects forward.”

The EEOC complaints say the problems started when Hardeep Anand was promoted to Public Works Director in March 2013.

The city hired independent investigator Rosilyn Dickerson in August to look into the Office of Professional Standards complaint, said city spokesman Chaz Adams.

She was hired “to ensure that the proper level of resources were being allocated to address the situation, and to ensure that an evaluation would be conducted by an objective, independent third party,” Adams said.

The investigator should report to the city in November, said Chris Sharp, an attorney representing some of the employees who have made complaints.

Most of the 26 employees who filed the complaint are “just waiting” to see what Dickerson’s report says, Sharp said.

“The hope is that will help resolve the situation,” he said. “Legally, you’re required to complain through the employee’s complaint mechanism first. If that doesn’t resolve the issue, you can go to legal action.”

Sharp got involved when 13 employees older than 40 almost lost their jobs in May, he said. The city told them their positions were going to be eliminated.

They hired Sharp, and he sent the city a letter suggesting the cuts were age discrimination.

“Soon after that, they decided not to go forward with the layoffs,” Sharp said.

It’s a shame this is happening because Fort Lauderdale has “been down this road before,” Sharp said.

The city settled a discrimination lawsuit in 2003 with Elgin Jones, giving him $455,000. He claimed a 1997 exam for a promotion was manipulated to keep him from getting the job because he’s black.

“It was the same department, and it involves similar issues,” Sharp said. “We’d love to see the city change the environment to be better.”

Original Article

The post Fort Lauderdale public works department employees file complaint about ‘toxic’ work environment appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

American stockbroker sets record for cannabis consumption with 115,000th joint (and it’s all legal)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:13:00 GMT

An American stockbroker has one of the world’s most prolific cannabis smokers – thanks to a constant supply of the drug to treat a rare bone disease.

Fort Lauderdale stockbroker Irvin Rosenfeld will tomorrow smoke his 115,000th joint – and it’s all legal.

The 56-year-old has been provided with cannabis by the government since 1982, when he became a patient in the Federal Drug Administration’s Investigational New Drug Programme.

Rosenfeld suffers from multiple congenital cartilaginous exostoses, which causes severe pain which can be alleviated by the drug.

He has been receiving 300 joints of the drug every 25 days for the past 27 years, NBC Miami reported.

‘I would be bedridden without it, if I would even be alive,’ he insisted.

‘I shouldn’t have been alive and I’m still alive, I take no other medicines, I’m in great shape because of the cannabis. It’s just sad because the medicine’s there.’

Rosenfeld says he does not get ‘high’ on the drug, nor does it make him hungry.

He said: ‘No munchies, no munchies, nothing other people get. A lot of patients don’t get high.’

He added: ‘There are people who have been raised to think it’s the devil’s work, they’ll always be against it.

‘If you truly think marijuana’s as bad as you think it is, explain me.’

The first marijuana coffee shop in the US has opened in Portland, Oregon.

The premises allows people prescribed marijuana by a doctor a place to buy and smoke the drug, although they have to remain out of public view.

It is technically a private club, but is open to any Oregon residents who hold official medical marijuana cards. There are 21,000 patients registered to use marijuana in the state.

Original Article

The post American stockbroker sets record for cannabis consumption with 115,000th joint (and it’s all legal) appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Ripoff Report Folks Sue Newspaper and Reporter for Defamation–Xcentric Ventures v. Village Voice

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:02:00 GMT

Xcentric Ventures v. Village Voice Media, CV 2008-02416 (Ariz. Superior Ct. complaint filed Jan. 31, 2008). The case history .

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve blogged on lawsuits involving Ed Magedson and related entities Xcentric Ventures, the Ripoff Report, badbusinessbureau.com and others. Certainly they seem to get sued a lot, especially for defamation, as Sarah Bird documented here . If I spent that much time in court, the last thing I’d want to do is bring a lawsuit. But as Sarah Bird’s report enumerates, Magedson and his group have gone on the offensive a few times. Some people just seem destined to spend their lives litigating.

This lawsuit relates to a lengthy and in-depth article on Magedson and the Ripoff Report written by Sarah Fenske that published in February 2007. (I mentioned this article in a blog post here .) To minimize my risk of being the next defendant, I won’t restate the allegedly defamatory language, but it involves a purported quote of Christopher Sharp, a Florida attorney representing Whitney Information in their lawsuit against the Ripoff Report group . See pages 3-4 of the complaint . Not only did the plaintiffs sue the story’s publisher (the Phoenix New Times and its parent the Village Voice), but they sued the reporter Sarah Fenske and her husband (as a Doe to be named later) as well.

On the one hand, I understand why the Ripoff Report group sued over these quotes. I suspect the Phoenix New Times article already has been cited in various plaintiffs’ briefs, and I’m sure that future plaintiffs will continue to do so unless the Ripoff Report group clears their names and establishes the falsity of Mr. Sharp’s allegations.

On the other hand, I thought this lawsuit was rich with irony. In earlier drafts of this post, I had a long list of ironies, many of which I ultimately decided were too snarky even for me . You’ll have to use your imagination. Instead, I’ve decided to focus on just two odd aspects of this lawsuit.

Why Sue the Intermediary?

According to Sarah Bird’s report, Magedson filed a lawsuit against Sharp in February 2007. I haven’t seen the complaint or other case documents, but given the timing I suspect that the lawsuit involves his article quotes (and maybe other issues). The complaint says that Mr. Sharp now “contends that the quotes attributed to him were taken out of context and/or were improperly quoted,” so perhaps the plaintiffs now feel that Sharp has adequately recanted. Either way, a lawsuit against Sharp should be adequate to clear the Ripoff Report’s name.

As a result, unless the Phoenix New Times completely fabricated the statement (which the complaint didn’t allege), the plaintiffs should be satisfied pursuing only Sharp. Indeed, if a company has a problem with a user-supplied report published on Ripoff Report, the Ripoff Report folks say to take it up with the user and leave the Ripoff Report out of it . When the shoe is on the other foot, why did the plaintiffs go after the intermediaries as well?

Cyberspace Exceptionalism

Ripoff Report owes its existence to 47 USC 230. Without that immunization, Ripoff Report almost certainly would have been sued to oblivion. But 47 USC 230 is an exceptionalist statute available only to online media companies. Offline media companies don’t get the same protection, creating a regulatory imbalance that puts offline print publishers at a competitive disadvantage. See Randy Picker’s comments on this point.

So if the Phoenix New Times had published the allegedly defamatory third party quotes only in its online edition, it should have been clearly and fully insulated by 47 USC 230 (as the plaintiffs well know because they helped create some of the expansive 230 precedent that would apply). In contrast, the plaintiffs can bring this lawsuit only because the Phoenix New Times also chose to publish the exact same article in its dead trees edition. I understand that 230 creates this medium-specific dichotomy in defamation law, but if it were my decision, I wouldn’t want to take advantage of it.

Original Article

The post Ripoff Report Folks Sue Newspaper and Reporter for Defamation–Xcentric Ventures v. Village Voice appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

The Real Rip-Off Report

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:03:00 GMT

It’s not exactly easy to book an interview with Ed Magedson, the self-described consumer advocate and creator of the wildly successful www.RipOffReport.com .

Not because he doesn’t want to talk. Magedson loves talking, especially when the subject is his beloved Web site.

It’s just that he’s so incredibly particular. Arranging one simple meeting is an exercise that captures, perfectly, why Magedson is so good at getting results — and why he’s infuriated the CEOs of several midsize companies to the point that they accuse him, flatly, of extortion. He overthinks every detail. And it would never occur to him to stop pushing before he gets what he wants, even if he’s not sure what that is.

First there’s where to meet. It has to be a public place. A dog park? A restaurant? Even after Magedson decides on lunch at Chompie’s, he calls back with instructions about which bank of booths to pick. He’s planning to park in the handicapped spot, he says, and from the right booth, he’ll be able to keep an eye on his dog.

The post The Real Rip-Off Report appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

The Real Rip-Off Report – – News – Phoenix – Phoenix New Times

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:17:00 GMT

Article

The post The Real Rip-Off Report – – News – Phoenix – Phoenix New Times appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

IRAAP: Investigative Reports – Aircraft Incidents

Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:15:00 GMT

IRAAP Aircraft Incident Reports

The post IRAAP: Investigative Reports – Aircraft Incidents appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

MARIJUANA USER KEPT OFF PLANE FILES SUIT

Sat, 08 Dec 2001 23:09:00 GMT

FT. LAUDERDALE, Fla. — When one of the seven people in the country legally
allowed to puff marijuana called a news conference in the summer and
threatened to sue Delta Air Lines for refusing to allow him on a plane with
his herbal medicine, he was not just blowing smoke.

Irvin Rosenfeld, a 48-year-old Boca Raton stockbroker, never got the apology
he wanted, so he filed a federal discrimination lawsuit Wednesday in Ft.
Lauderdale, seeking unspecified monetary damages and a promise from Delta
that it would stop violating the Air Carriers Access Act of 1986.

Rosenfeld has a rare and painful bone disease but finds relief in smoking
marijuana, prescribed by a doctor and grown for the government. The smoking
dulls the pain but does not make him euphoric, Rosenfeld said.

On an average day, Rosenfeld said, he smokes about a dozen marijuana
cigarettes.

Rosenfeld said he alerted Delta a month before the March flight and that the
airline had cooperated in the dozen or so times he has flown during the last
18 years.

But when he went to board a flight bound for Washington, D.C., where he was
to attend a U.S. Supreme Court session on medicinal marijuana, a Delta
worker told him he could not board with his canister of cannabis.

Refusing him a seat on the airliner was like booting a diabetic person from
the flight because he carried hypodermic needles and insulin, said
Christopher Sharp, Rosenfeld’s lawyer.

The Air Carrier Access Act protects against discrimination for a disability,
and a violation can result in punitive damages. Under the act, Delta was
required to specify in writing why Rosenfeld could not board the airline,
which it did not do, Sharp said.

Rosenfeld said he showed the Delta counter agent his prescription and even
called a Broward County sheriff’s officer to the counter to verify his
claim.

Delta, however, said the law is on its side.

“Under federal law, marijuana is an illegal drug, and I’m not aware of any
medical use exception of the nature he claims,” said Katie Connell, a Delta
spokeswoman.

Original Article

The post MARIJUANA USER KEPT OFF PLANE FILES SUIT appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Medicinal Marijuana User Sues Delta

Fri, 07 Dec 2001 18:07:00 GMT

MEDICINAL MARIJUANA USER SUES DELTA

FORT LAUDERDALE – A man who legally uses marijuana for medicinal purposes is suing Delta Air Lines for kicking him off a plane in March.

Irvin Rosenfeld, a stockbroker from Boca Raton in neighboring Palm Beach County, filed his lawsuit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale under the federal Air Carriers Access Act of 1986.

Rosenfeld, 48, suffers from a rare and painful bone disease and finds relief in smoking marijuana, which is prescribed by a doctor and grown for the government. He says he is one of seven people in the United States permitted to smoke marijuana. Every day, he smokes up to 12 marijuana cigarettes, about two every two hours, to fight tumors.

Without the drug, he says, his condition would become so painful that he could not walk, and could suffer hemorrhaging. He says smoking the marijuana dulls his constant pain but does not make him euphoric.

Rosenfeld is suing over a March 26 Delta flight from Fort Lauderdale to Washington, D.C., where he was to attend a U.S. Supreme Court session on possible expansion of medicinal marijuana use. A Delta employee told him he could not board the plane with his canister of legal cannabis.

Rosenfeld’s attorney, Christopher C. Sharp, said refusing to seat his client on the airliner was like kicking a diabetic off the flight for carrying hypodermic needles and insulin.

“We’re not putting any price tag on this, but Delta’s exposure in this is considerable,” Sharp said.

Under the Air Carrier Access Act, people with disabilities are protected against discrimination. Violation can lead to punitive damages.

Under the law, Delta had to specify in writing why Rosenfeld could not board the airplane and why he was thought to be a threat to the safety of those on board, Sharp said.

The airline did not do that, he said.

However, a Delta spokeswoman said the law was on the airline’s side.

“Under federal law, marijuana is an illegal drug, and I’m not aware of any medical use exception of the nature he claims or of any private citizen having a right to possess it in the United States,” said Delta’s Katie Connell.

Rosenfeld said that when Delta turned him away, he had to retrieve his checked luggage. He then found a flight on another airline and did not get to Washington until the following afternoon.

Original Article

The post Medicinal Marijuana User Sues Delta appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Marijuana User Kept Off Plane Files Suit

Thu, 06 Dec 2001 23:57:00 GMT

Man Has Prescription, Alleges Discrimination

FT. LAUDERDALE, Fla. — When one of the seven people in the country legally allowed to puff marijuana called a news conference in the summer and threatened to sue Delta Air Lines for refusing to allow him on a plane with his herbal medicine, he was not just blowing smoke.

Irvin Rosenfeld, a 48-year-old Boca Raton stockbroker, never got the apology he wanted, so he filed a federal discrimination lawsuit Wednesday in Ft. Lauderdale, seeking unspecified monetary damages and a promise from Delta that it would stop violating the Air Carriers Access Act of 1986.

Rosenfeld has a rare and painful bone disease but finds relief in smoking marijuana, prescribed by a doctor and grown for the government. The smoking dulls the pain but does not make him euphoric, Rosenfeld said.

On an average day, Rosenfeld said, he smokes about a dozen marijuana cigarettes.

Rosenfeld said he alerted Delta a month before the March flight and that the airline had cooperated in the dozen or so times he has flown during the last 18 years.

But when he went to board a flight bound for Washington, D.C., where he was to attend a U.S. Supreme Court session on medicinal marijuana, a Delta worker told him he could not board with his canister of cannabis.

Refusing him a seat on the airliner was like booting a diabetic person from the flight because he carried hypodermic needles and insulin, said Christopher Sharp, Rosenfeld’s lawyer.

The Air Carrier Access Act protects against discrimination for a disability, and a violation can result in punitive damages. Under the act, Delta was required to specify in writing why Rosenfeld could not board the airline, which it did not do, Sharp said.

Rosenfeld said he showed the Delta counter agent his prescription and even called a Broward County sheriff’s officer to the counter to verify his claim.

Delta, however, said the law is on its side.

“Under federal law, marijuana is an illegal drug, and I’m not aware of any medical use exception of the nature he claims,” said Katie Connell, a Delta spokeswoman.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Detroit Free Press

The post Marijuana User Kept Off Plane Files Suit appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Delta Airlines Doesn’t Allow Sick person to Carry Their Meds

Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:11:00 GMT

Delta for Kicking Him off Flight Because He Was Carrying the Drug
The Associated Press
Published: Dec 6, 2001

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) – A man who legally uses marijuana for
medicinal purposes is suing Delta Air Lines for kicking him off a plane
because he was carrying the drug.
Irvin Rosenfeld, a stockbroker from Boca Raton, filed suit Wednesday in
federal court, claiming the airline violated federal protections for
people with disabilities.
Rosenfeld, 48, suffers from a rare and painful bone disease and finds
relief in smoking marijuana, which is prescribed by a doctor and grown
for the government. Every day, he smokes up to 12 marijuana cigarettes
to fight tumors.

In March, he was kept from boarding a Delta flight from Fort Lauderdale
to Washington, D.C., where he was to attend a U.S. Supreme Court session
on possible expansion of medicinal marijuana use. Officials told him he
had to leave the marijuana behind or get written permission from every
state he was flying over.

Rosenfeld’s attorney, Christopher Sharp, said refusing to seat his
client on the airliner was like kicking a diabetic off the flight for
carrying hypodermic needles and insulin.

“We’re not putting any price tag on this, but Delta’s exposure in this
is considerable,” Sharp said.

Rosenfeld is one of a handful of people in the country receiving
marijuana from the federal government because of unusual diseases. He
has smoked government-provided marijuana for nearly 30 years and says
without the drug, his condition would become so painful that he could
not walk and could hemorrhage.

Under the federal Air Carriers Access Act of 1986, Delta had to specify
in writing why Rosenfeld could not board the airplane and why he was
thought to be a threat to the safety of those on board, Sharp said. The
airline did not do that, he said.

A Delta spokeswoman said she was unaware that any Americans were
permitted to smoke marijuana.

“Under federal law, marijuana is an illegal drug, and I’m not aware of
any medical use exception of the nature he claims or of any private
citizen having a right to possess it in the United States,” Katie
Connell said.

Rosenfeld said that when Delta turned him away, he had to find a flight
on another airline and did not get to Washington until the following
afternoon.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA3X79RWUC.html

The post Delta Airlines Doesn’t Allow Sick person to Carry Their Meds appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Airline Refused to Board Man With Prescription for Pot

Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:05:00 GMT

SEARCH

PRACTICE AREAS

ASSOCIATIONS

Article

The post Airline Refused to Board Man With Prescription for Pot appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Legal Pot-smoker Files Suit

Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:02:00 GMT

SEARCH

PRACTICE AREAS

ASSOCIATIONS

When one of the seven people in the country legally allowed to puff marijuana called a news conference last summer and threatened to sue Delta Air Lines for refusing to allow him on a plane with his herbal medicine, he was not just blowing smoke.

Irvin Rosenfeld, a 48-year-old Boca Raton stockbroker, never got the apology he wanted, so he filed a federal discrimination lawsuit in Fort Lauderdale on Wednesday, seeking unspecified monetary damages and a promise from Delta that it would stop violating the Air Carriers Access Act of 1986.

Rosenfeld suffers from a rare and painful bone disease but finds relief in smoking marijuana, prescribed by a doctor and grown for the government. The smoking dulls the constant, piercing pain but does not make Rosenfeld euphoric, he said.

Relief, in the form of about 300 marijuana cigarettes, arrives by mail each month in a nondescript tin canister. On an average day, Rosenfeld said, he smokes about a dozen.

When flying Delta at least a dozen times before this incident, Rosenfeld said he always contacted the airline ahead of time and made arrangements to take a smoke break in a secluded area of an airport if there was a lengthy layover on his itinerary.

He has lit up in smoking lounges and even police substations at airports. But when he went to board a March 26 flight bound for Washington, D.C., where he was to attend a U.S. Supreme Court session on medicinal marijuana, a Delta worker told him he could not board with his canister of cannabis.

Refusing him a seat on the airliner was like booting a diabetic from the flight because he carried hypodermic needles and insulin, said Christopher C. Sharp, Rosenfeld’s lawyer.

The Air Carrier Access Act protects against discrimination for a disability, and a violation can result in punitive damages. Under the act, Delta was required to specify in writing why Rosenfeld could not board the airline and why he was thought to be a threat to the safety of everyone on board, Sharp said.

Delta did not do that. The airline also violated the law by not having a complaint resolution officer at the airport to explain the law and the company’s decision to Rosenfeld, the lawsuit states.

Delta, however, said the law is on its side.

“Under federal law , marijuana is an illegal drug, and I’m not aware of any medical use exception of the nature he claims or of any private citizen having a right to possess it in the United States,” said Katie Connell, a Delta spokeswoman.

Rosenfeld said he showed the Delta counter agent his prescription and even called a Broward Sheriff’s officer to the counter to verify his claim. The officer happened to be familiar with the medicinal marijuana program and told the ticket agent — to no avail, said Rosenfeld.

Neither Rosenfeld nor a representative of the federal agency that he says oversees the medicinal marijuana program has presented any documentation to Delta proving that he is legally prescribed cannabis, Connell said. If that documentation were presented, Delta would readily comply with that advice , she said.

Terri Somers can be reached at tsomers@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4849.

Original article

The post Legal Pot-smoker Files Suit appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Legal Pot-Smoker from Boca Sues Airline

Thu, 06 Dec 2001 17:58:00 GMT

SEARCH

PRACTICE AREAS

ASSOCIATIONS

Posted by FoM on December 06, 2001 at 09:28:02 PT
By Terri Somers, Staff Writer
Source: Sun-Sentinel

Relief, in the form of about 300 marijuana cigarettes, arrives by mail each month in a nondescript tin canister. On an average day, Rosenfeld said, he smokes about a dozen.

Refusing him a seat on the airliner was like booting a diabetic from the flight because he carried hypodermic needles and insulin, said Christopher C. Sharp, Rosenfeld’s lawyer.

The Air Carrier Access Act protects against discrimination for a disability, and a violation can result in punitive damages. Under the act, Delta was required to specify in writing why Rosenfeld could not board the airline and why he was thought to be a threat to the safety of everyone on board, Sharp said.

Delta did not do that. The airline also violated the law by not having a complaint resolution officer at the airport to explain the law and the company’s decision to Rosenfeld, the lawsuit states.

Delta, however, said the law is on its side.

Complete Title: Legal Pot-Smoker from Boca Sues Airline for Keeping Him Off Plane

Source: Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel (FL)
Author: Terri Somers, Staff Writer
Published: December 6, 2001
Copyright: 2001 Sun-Sentinel Company
Contact: letters@sun-sentinel.com
Website: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/

Legal Marijuana Smoker Plants Seeds Of Court Action

Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:59:00 GMT

SEARCH

PRACTICE AREAS

ASSOCIATIONS

Like any pack-a-day smoker, Irvin Rosenfeld has some problems traveling by airplane because of the government ban on lighting up while in flight. But it is Rosenfeld’s particular smoke — marijuana — and his need to light up once the plane touches down and during layovers that has landed him in some unusual situations.

Now it could land the Broward County man in federal court, accusing Delta Air Lines of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The 48-year-old Boca Raton stockbroker with a rare and painful bone disease has smoked his legally prescribed, government-grown marijuana in smoking lounges, medical clinics and even police substations of airports. Marijuana eases the constant, piercing pain of his rare disease, he said; it doesn’t make him euphoric or “high.” He needs to smoke a joint about every two hours, so a long layover in an airport poses a logistical challenge for Rosenfeld.

For the past 19 years that he has used medical marijuana, he has called ahead, informed Delta of his medical needs and been accommodated with a spot to smoke.

In March, when he had to fly to Washington, D.C., to testify before the U.S. Supreme Court about medical marijuana use, Rosenfeld called in advance, as usual. He says he left messages and never got a call back.

But on March 26, the day of the flight and about 30 minutes before takeoff, he was paged and asked to report to Delta’s customer service counter. Speaking at his lawyer’s office on Wednesday, Rosenfeld recalled the exchange like this:

“I’m sorry, you won’t be allowed to board this flight,” a Delta employee told him. “We’ve been informed that you’re carrying marijuana.”

“Yes,” Rosenfeld said. “I’m the one who informed you.”

Rosenfeld explained he is one of seven people in the United States permitted to smoke marijuana. In his case it relaxes his muscles so the multiple tumors that form on the long bones in his body do not rupture muscle and veins, which could cause him to bleed to death.

He showed airline employees the prescription pasted to the plastic bag that holds 12 marijuana cigarettes, his average daily dose. Each month the prescription is taped to the tin canister stuffed with 300 marijuana cigarettes he gets in the mail. He showed them his name on the brief that was to be argued the next day in the Supreme Court.

The Delta employees said the airline’s lawyers wanted Rosenfeld to get a waiver from the government in each state the flight would pass over. Rosenfeld explained that he had never before received such a request from Delta.

“If I was a diabetic, would they expect me to board the plane without my insulin?” he asked. “They had a problem with me because my prescribed medication is marijuana. That’s a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

He tried to explain that the prescription, approved by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, trumps any state requirement. Called to the Delta desk, a Broward sheriff’s officer told airline employees Rosenfeld was right on that point. The officer had heard of Rosenfeld and a former Hollywood woman, another of the people the government allows to smoke marijuana. They have been the subject of several newspaper articles dealing with the issue.

Still, Rosenfeld could not get on the Delta plane. Eventually, he found a later flight on another carrier.

He told the Delta employees they would hear from him again. And he boarded the second plane without telling anyone about the marijuana.

Delta officials are investigating Rosenfeld’s claim, said spokeswoman Cindi Kurczewski, but would not issue a comment Wednesday.

It took Rosenfeld several months to find a lawyer, Christopher Sharp of Fort Lauderdale, who was willing to take a case in which the client cannot seek a large monetary settlement. They both talk about changing behavior. And Sharp, Rosenfeld said, is unlike other lawyers because he was comfortable with supporting someone’s need to take a controversial medicine.

“My wife has lupus,” Sharp said. “I can appreciate what [Rosenfeld] goes through.”

Sharp said he and his client are not ready to file a lawsuit just yet.

They announced Wednesday they are giving Delta 30 days to issue an apology, reimburse Rosenfeld the $450 it cost to buy the ticket on the other airline, and promise that such discrimination will never happen again.

“If Delta does that, our legal claim is moot,” Sharp said.

Rosenfeld does not hide that he is an activist for the medicinal use of marijuana. But calling the media to his lawyer’s office on Wednesday was about sticking up for people with disabilities, he said.

“It’s important to stand up to this invidious discrimination,” Sharp said.

If Delta would issue an apology, Sharp said, Rosenfeld would go back to flying on its planes.

His client nodded and smiled. “I have a lot of frequent flier miles,” he explained.

Terri Somers can be reached at tsomers@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4849.

By Terri Somers STAFF WRITER

Original article

The post Legal Marijuana Smoker Plants Seeds Of Court Action appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Delta Airlines refused to allow legal federal patient to fly

Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:08:00 GMT

SEARCH

PRACTICE AREAS

ASSOCIATIONS

My name is Irvin Rosenfeld and, for the past 18 years, I have been one of
seven patients in the U.S. to legally receive medical cannabis from the
federal government.

On March 26, 2001, Delta Airlines refused to allow me to fly to Washington
D.C. on a reserved ticket to attend oral argument at the United States
Supreme Court for a case involving medical cannabis issues, allegedly
because I was carrying my prescribed medicine (cannabis). Even though I
gave Delta advance notice of my situation and showed a representative my
prescription for medical cannabis, I was told that I would not be permitted
on Delta’s plane because I did not have permission to carry my medicine
from each state that we were to fly over. Delta further informed me that
this decision was made by its lawyers, but I was not allowed to speak with
the Delta lawyers before I was summarily kicked off my flight and forced to
book a last-minute flight on another airline, at great expense and
inconvenience to myself.

This was the first time in 18 years that any airline refused to allow me to
fly with my federally prescribed medicine, and I had previously flown Delta
on numerous occasions after disclosing that I would be carrying my medicine
on the plane.

Since I was not allowed to speak to the Delta lawyers when this incident
occurred, I intend to pursue my legal rights and remedies under the
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), which prohibits public
transportation providers from imposing unreasonable barriers to the use of
their services by handicapped individuals such as myself. See 42 U.S.C. 12184.

On August 15, 2001, at 10:30 a.m., I, along with my attorney, Christopher
C. Sharp, will be holding a press conference at Mr. Sharp’s office to
inform everyone, including Delta Airlines, how we intend to proceed in this
matter. We will attempt to resolve the issues without legal action, but if
it becomes necessary to institute litigation, we will not hesitate to do
so. I understand that people may have strong feelings and disagreements
about the medical use of cannabis, but Delta’s actions in this case were an
insult to all Americans who suffer from disabilities.

For further in information you can contact myself or Christopher C. Sharp,
Esq., whose office address is Christopher C. Sharp, P.A., International
Building, 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 807, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
33304. We can also be reached at the following numbers:

Christopher C. Sharp, Esq.: (954) 563-7374 (office)
(954) 205-5857 (cellular)
(954) 401-9156 (cellular for Mr. Sharp’s assistant, Lori
Helfen)

Irvin Rosenfeld: (954) 749-2444 (cellular)
(800) 255-1943 (work)
—————————————————————————

Before forwarding the press release above, I checked around a little and
found the following contact info for Delta:

Delta Air Lines, Inc.
P.O. Box 20706
Atlanta, Georgia 30320-6001

I used the following webform to write a protest:

http://www.delta.com/care/email/index.jsp

And I found the following webpage where they clearly say that they take
care of our disabled patients, in contrast to what actually happened:

http://www.delta.com/travel/trav_serv/serv_disabled/index.jsp

Richard

Original Article

The post Delta Airlines refused to allow legal federal patient to fly appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Ex-mechanic Seeks More In Damages

Fri, 26 May 2000 18:25:00 GMT

MARGATE — A former city mechanic on Monday asked for more money in legal damages after a federal jury ruled in his favor in a race-discrimination lawsuit this month.

Attorneys for Anthony L. Shelton Sr., who was fired in 1998 from his job as a mechanic for the city’s Public Works Department, have asked a federal judge to order city officials to pay Shelton for future earnings he would have received had the firing not occurred and had he continued working for the city.

Before he was fired in September 1998, Shelton accused his supervisors of picking on him because he is black. In city personnel records, those supervisors accused Shelton of being a poor mechanic .

An eight-member federal jury in Miami ruled in Shelton’s favor on May 10, awarding the Lauderhill man $64,000 for emotional distress and back pay. His attorneys have asked for an additional undisclosed amount to compensate Shelton for future time he would have worked for the city had he not been fired.

Federal law says the plaintiff in a successful discrimination case who has been fired must be hired again or compensated for a reasonable amount of time, said Christopher C. Sharp, one of Shelton’s attorneys.

The city attorney, Gene Steinfeld, said he strongly disagrees with the verdict, but added he feels confident federal Judge Adalberto Jordan will rule in the city’s favor and deny the extra award.

“Quite frankly, I think Mr. Shelton’s record speaks to the reason why he was terminated,” Steinfeld said.

Shelton was hired as a fleet mechanic in Margate in November 1993. His personnel record contains at least two letters of reprimand from Public Works Director Jim Hinds.

“Your history of poor workmanship is well-documented,” Hinds wrote in a memo. “You have previously received numerous counseling notices, oral reprimands, written reprimands, a two-day suspension and a five-day suspension.”

But Sharp and attorney Robert Norell, who also represented Shelton, said their client’s white co-workers were not disciplined for the same mistakes Shelton made.

For example, for all the times the chief mechanic disciplined Shelton, there were few reprimands for his white co-workers , Sharp said.

“Not one of the other white mechanics was ever disciplined for anything — I think one of them was written up for not locking up the motor-pool fence,” Sharp said. “We just showed the jury the numbers.”

Jeremy Milarsky can be reached at jmilarsky@sun-sentinel.com or call 954-572-2020

Original Article

The post Ex-mechanic Seeks More In Damages appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-real-rip-off-report-6445677

Thu, 03 Sep 1998 18:20:00 GMT

MARGATE — A Margate woman who accused commissioner Arthur Bross of groping her in a bar in November has sued him in Broward County Circuit Court .

Bross was served at City Hall on Wednesday before a 7:30 p.m. commission meeting .

Mercedes Almeida, 35, claims in her lawsuit that Bross “inappropriately touched, verbally harassed and made unwanted sexual advances” during a Nov. 15 social gathering at Bruzinski’s bar in Margate. Almeida is seeking money for damages.

Bross, who was vice mayor at the time, has denied the accusations.

Almeida’s attorney, Christopher C. Sharp, said the lawsuit was filed when settlement negotiations broke down.

“It was filed because we weren’t able to obtain a pre-suit settlement,” Sharp said on Wednesday. Almeida filed a written threat to sue in February.

Initially, the city turned the case over to the Florida League of Cities’ self-insurance trust fund, but an insurance adjuster decided that Bross had to pay his own legal fees because he was not on the job when the episode allegedly occurred.

According to the complaint, Bross began grabbing and touching Almeida after asking her to dance, then tried to hug her and run his fingers through her hair. The alleged episode occurred when several firefighters and other city employees gathered at Bruzinski’s after the dedication of Firefighters Park.

The lawsuit also claims that Bross tried touching Almeida’s breasts and buttocks, told Almeida she was beautiful and “wished he were younger so he could have a relationship with her.”

Almeida is not a city employee, although she is engaged to John Cruise Jr., a Margate firefighter since July 1973.

Original Article

The post http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-real-rip-off-report-6445677 appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Margate Official Must Pay Defense Of Charges Out Of His Own Pocket

Tue, 02 Jun 1998 18:23:00 GMT

MARGATE — A city official accused of groping a woman in a local bar must pay his own attorney fees because he was not on the job when the alleged incident occurred, an insurance adjuster said on Monday.

Mercedes Almeida, 35, is claiming Commissioner Arthur Bross “inappropriately touched, verbally harassed and made unwanted sexual advances” during a gathering on Nov. 15 at Bruzinski’s bar in Margate.

At the time, Bross was Margate’s vice mayor.

Almeida, a Margate resident, earlier this year filed a written notice of intent to sue.

“Normally when city officials are brought into litigation, it’s something they have done under the mantle of city government activities,” said Jon Morrison, an adjuster for the Florida Municipal Insurance Trusts. “This case to us just didn’t fall within those realms.”

Bross could not be reached for comment on Monday.

Attorney Michael Burke was retained earlier this year through the League of Cities to represent Bross. That retainer ended on Monday, Morrison said.

Almeida’s attorney, Christopher C. Sharp, was out of town and could not be reached for comment.

The decision not to provide Bross with an attorney came after investigators took statements from several “parties involved,” Morrison said. Morrison declined to say who was interviewed or what they said.

“It is our opinion that Mr. Bross was not in the course and scope in his position as vice mayor of Margate. He is an individual . . . the coverage would not extend to him because he was not on official business,” Morrison said. “If Bross wants legal representation, he will have to pay for it on his own.”

Longtime Margate resident Olive McCann was ecstatic.

“I am so relieved and gratified that Florida Municipal Insurance Trusts has seen that the claim was bogus,” McCann said. “I am so glad.”

Original Article

The post Margate Official Must Pay Defense Of Charges Out Of His Own Pocket appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .

Insurance Fund May Not Help Official

Wed, 01 Apr 1998 18:21:00 GMT

MARGATE — When a Margate woman accused Commissioner Arthur Bross of groping her in a bar, the city asked the Florida League of Cities’ self-insurance trust fund to handle his defense.

Residents such as Olive McCann want to know why.

McCann figures Bross wasn’t conducting city business as vice mayor. He was celebrating the dedication of Firefighters Park at a beer bash on his own time, she said.

“I can’t understand how an incident taking place in a bar should be covered. That’s a private thing,” McCann said. “It’s his problem. It’s not the city’s problem or the taxpayers’ problem.”

Mercedes Almeida, 35, is claiming that Bross, 61, “inappropriately touched, verbally harassed and made unwanted sexual advances” during a gathering on Nov. 15 at Bruzinski’s bar in Margate. At the time, Bross was Margate’s vice mayor.

Almeida is seeking more than $15,000 in damages.

Almeida’s attorney, Christopher C. Sharp, is seeking a settlement, claiming that Bross has caused his client “severe emotional and physical distress.”

Jon Morrison, an adjuster for the Florida Municipal Insurance Trusts, said insurance pool coverage isn’t automatic.

“If [our) investigation determines Mr. Bross was not in the course and scope as vice mayor of the city of Margate, then coverage would not be applicable under the city of Margate’s agreement through the trust,” Morrison said.

Florida Municipal Insurance Trusts is a self-insurance pool of governmental entities in Florida administered by the Florida League of Cities. The pool typically is used to defend lawsuits against officials.

City Attorney Eugene Steinfeld has declined to discuss the case. Michael Burke, the attorney the Florida League of Cities has assigned to represent Bross, could not be reached for comment.

Original Article

The post Insurance Fund May Not Help Official appeared first on Sharp Law Firm, P.A. .