RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Federal’

B&H Photo will pay $3.2 million to settle federal discrimination case

17 Aug

B&H Foto & Electronics Corp., the company behind retail site B&H Photo, has agreed to pay $ 3,220,000 to settle a federal discrimination case, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. This follows a lawsuit filed by the Department of Labor against B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. in February 2016, in which the department alleged that B&H was engaging in discrimination against multiple groups, as well as harassment of workers.

According to the lawsuit filed by the DoL, B&H Foto ‘systematically discriminated’ against Asian, black, and female jobseekers, instead hiring only male Hispanic workers in its entry-level positions. The individuals it did hire were then paid much less than other employees in similar positions, according to the Department of Labor, and weren’t promoted into higher positions within the company.

The Labor Department’s lawsuit also claimed that B&H Foto subjected its hired workers to harassment on a routine basis, and that it gave them ‘unequal access to restroom facilities.’ Employees complained to the company about these problems, but the lawsuit states that B&H Foto failed to correct them. As a result, the company will pay $ 3.2 million as both monetary relief and back wages to more than 1,300 individuals.

In addition to paying the fee, B&H Foto has agreed to annually train its managers on workplace harassment prevention and equal opportunity principles, and to hire a consultant to fix the negative conduct and practices at its warehouses. Though the lawsuit concerns discriminatory practices at its Brooklyn Navy Yard warehouse, the consultant will also work to ensure the problems don’t arise at B&H’s future Florence, New Jersey warehouse.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on B&H Photo will pay $3.2 million to settle federal discrimination case

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Federal Court confirms (again): Police can be photographed in public

11 Jul

Following in the footsteps of the US’s First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, judges for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals have unanimously ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to photograph and video record police officers in public. The decision follows multiple cases involving law enforcement retaliation against individuals who were recording police activity in public.

The ruling, which was filed on July 7, 2017, details two cases in which Philadelphia police officers interfered with individuals who were recording public law enforcement activity.

The first case involved Amanda Geraci, who was filming the arrest of an anti-fracking protester when an officer ‘pinned’ her against a pillar, blocking her ability to record the arrest. The second case involved Richard Fields, who was arrested after refusing to stop recording public police activity.

On behalf of the court, and per the document filed last week, Judge Thomas Ambro wrote, “Simply put, the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public.”

There may be exceptions to this right, the judge notes, such as times when a “recording interferes with police activity.” However, in the absence of that concern, the Court finds that “under the First Amendment’s right of access to information, the public has the commensurate right to record—photograph, film, or audio record—police officers conducting official police activity in public areas.”

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Federal Court confirms (again): Police can be photographed in public

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Federal judge dismisses case against Kentucky ‘Drone Hunter’

25 Mar

A federal judge in Kentucky has dismissed a lawsuit against William Meredith, a self-proclaimed ‘Drone Hunter,’ who shot down a $ 1500 drone that was flying over his property.

The pilot, David Boggs, sued Meredith last year claiming that his drone was flying in legal airspace as determined by the FAA and therefore was not trespassing. A 1946 Supreme Court decision asserted that a property owner’s rights extend up to 83 feet in the air.

US District Judge Thomas Russell ruled that federal court is not the proper venue for the lawsuit, noting that the FAA has not enforced any regulations regarding aerial trespassing, nor was the agency a party in the suit. Instead, the Judge said that the lawsuit should be litigated in Kentucky State Court under existing trespassing laws.

Boggs’ attorneys have not said whether he will appeal to a higher court – in this case, the 6th US Circuit. In the meantime, drone pilots should probably steer clear of Meredith’s property.

Via: Ars Technica

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Federal judge dismisses case against Kentucky ‘Drone Hunter’

Posted in Uncategorized