This blog explains what wage theft is, how threats to call ICE can create additional legal exposure for employers, and what workers can do to protect their rights.
In a widely shared video, roofing workers are seen on a residential roof as ICE agents arrive and detain several of them. Social media posts alleged that the homeowner called ICE to avoid paying a reported roofing bill of around $10,000.
ICE later stated that it was conducting a “targeted enforcement operation” near Cambridge and denied that the arrests were triggered by a tip from the homeowner. According to the agency, six people were arrested, several had final orders of removal, and one had a prior conviction for illegal reentry. The homeowner has also publicly denied contacting ICE and says she and her family have received threats following the raid.
Not everyone is convinced by the homeowner's claims, as demonstrated by the significant controversy the video continues to provoke. Others have also since pointed out that hiring workers, allowing them to perform substantial labor, and then reporting them to immigration authorities to avoid paying can violate multiple state and federal laws.
In most situations, individuals have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement officers, including ICE, so long as they do not interfere with official duties. Best practices include:
Workers who choose to record should remain calm, avoid physical interference, and clearly state that they are documenting the encounter.
Wage theft occurs when an employer fails to pay workers the full wages they are legally owed. Common examples include paying less than the minimum wage, denying overtime, misclassifying employees as independent contractors, or simply failing to pay for all hours worked.
Immigrant and undocumented workers are especially vulnerable to wage theft when employers:
According to the National Institute for Workers’ Rights, workers in the United States lose more money every year to wage theft than to all forms of property crime combined, with more than $15 billion stolen annually and less than 3% recovered.
Depending on the facts, a homeowner or employer who uses immigration threats to avoid paying workers may face both civil and criminal exposure.
Possible criminal issues can include:
Possible civil claims can include:
Some states, including Maryland, explicitly make it illegal to threaten to report a worker’s immigration status to obtain labor or avoid paying wages, and may allow workers to seek multiple damages and attorneys’ fees.
Regardless of immigration status, workers may have several options if they are not paid what they are owed:
Workers should also gather and keep:
Even when workers are detained or deported, it may still be possible to pursue wage claims through authorized representatives, mailed checks, or direct deposit arrangements.
Written by the abogado.com editorial team
The post Wage Theft and Threats to Call ICE: What Workers Need to Know appeared first on .
]]>U.S. marshals arrested Angela Lipps, 50, of Elizabethton, Tennessee, in July of 2025, on charges related to bank fraud in North Dakota. Facial recognition software linked a woman in surveillance footage of the crimes with photos of Lipps. Months passed before Lipps' attorney could present evidence showing she had been in Tennessee at the time.
Fargo's police chief claims the charges had a stronger basis than the facial recognition alone, but Lipps' attorneys plan to sue. Lipps says that the months in jail caused her to lose everything she had in Tennessee: her home and car, her good name, and even her dog.
In the spring of 2025, law enforcement in Fargo was investigating multiple bank frauds with a suspect who used a false military ID. To identify the suspect, detectives reviewed the surveillance footage using facial recognition software. Fargo Police Chief Dave Zibolski described this as "an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center." It matched the suspect's image with pictures of Angela Lipps, drawn from her driver's license and social media.
Fargo police then sought and received an arrest warrant for Lipps as a "fugitive from justice." In July, they found her in Carter County, on the eastern borders of Tennessee. Lipps, a grandmother of five, states that marshals arrested her "at gunpoint while babysitting four young children." Since she was arrested as a fugitive, Lipps was held without bail. She says that while she was in jail in Tennessee, her court-appointed attorney told her she would have to go to North Dakota to fight the charges.
However, no one brought Lipps to North Dakota until October. The Fargo Police Department claims it was unaware Lipps was in its custody until early December. In mid-December, Lipps' defense attorney Jay Greenwood was finally able to work with her and talk to the police. They provided bank records and receipts showing that Lipps was in Tennessee during the time of the bank fraud in North Dakota.
On Christmas Eve, Lipps' case was dismissed, and she was free — but hundreds of miles from home. Lipps claims that authorities offered her nowhere to go and no clothing safe for the North Dakota winter (FPD disputes both these assertions). Defense attorneys provided Lipps with a hotel room on Christmas, and a local nonprofit leader helped her travel home.
Following the controversy, Police Chief Zibolski has asserted that the AI identification was not the only evidence that led to Angela Lipps' arrest warrant, although he says he cannot discuss it further. He has also stressed that the investigation is "active and ongoing" and that the charges against Lipps could be refiled.
Nonetheless, Attorneys Eric Rice and Dane DeKrey are preparing to file a lawsuit against the Fargo authorities involved in Lipps' arrest. By her own account on her fundraising page, Lipps lost not just her personal assets but her reputation, as well as her physical and mental health. If proven, these losses could mean she has a significant claim for damages on one or more grounds.
However, Lipps' lawsuit could be complex. Her months of imprisonment did not stem from just one AI identification by Fargo police; several state authorities were involved. Police Chief Zibolski points out that the Cass County State's Attorney's Office filed for Lipps' arrest warrant, asserting that there was probable cause to arrest her, and a judge agreed. Why Lipps had to wait so long in jail is a separate matter entirely involving her attempt to contest her extradition to North Dakota. All this complicates the question of who, if anyone, can be held accountable in a lawsuit.
Although she may have spent the longest time in jail for it, Angela Lipps is only one of at least a dozen people in the U.S. who have been arrested due to facial recognition errors. Nijeer Parks spent ten days in a New Jersey jail, and recently, truck driver Jason Killinger sued the Reno, Nevada, police officer who held him for hours over a software misidentification. Critics like the ACLU say that facial recognition software is often more inaccurate for darker-skinned men and women, leading to more mistaken matches and arrests. The Lipps case has drawn serious concern from at least one North Dakota lawmaker, although no state regulations have been proposed yet. Some states and jurisdictions have developed guardrails to prevent false identifications from leading to arrests. Stories like Angela Lipps', and the lawsuits that follow, may help push for more laws and regulations.
The post Grandmother Held Without Bail After AI Software Error: Lawsuit Planned appeared first on .
]]>To most dog owners, their canine companions are more than merely pets. Showered with love, affection, and perhaps a large number of toys and treats, many view their furbabies and furbuddies as full family members. As a woman discovered after a fatal mishap, South Carolina law does not necessarily agree.
On February 11, 2026, the South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a circuit court’s partial summary judgment from 2022 in a per curiam decision. In a lawsuit involving an unfortunate demise at a doggy daycare, plaintiff Sarah Rock had argued that, given her deep attachment to her dogs Xumi and Ruben, the emotional trauma and pain and suffering she endured after Xumi’s wrongful death at Dog Daze of Charleston, LLC, should allow her to seek fair compensation through a personal injury claim for emotional distress. With two courts ruling that the stance of her relationship with her dogs having “special value” lacks bite, Rock may have to reassess her legal options.
The affirmation applies to the partial summary judgment’s narrow focus on pet dogs being considered personal property and assessed at market value for damages, as set forth in the South Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling in 1899’s State v. Langford. While Rock can continue to seek relief from counts of negligence, bailment, and breach of contract against Dog Daze and its owner, Charlie Freeman, her hopes of receiving emotional damages akin to those in a personal injury attorney seem pretty far-fetched at this point.
Once aware of the circumstances, few won’t feel empathy for Rock’s plight. As a single person, Rock considered Xumi, a five-year-old Miniature Poodle/Schnauzer mix weighing 12 pounds, and Ruben, a two-year-old, 16-pound Shih Tzu/Miniature Pinscher, as her children. Travel for work forced her to board her furbabies with Freeman at Dog Daze, a canine boarding, grooming, and daycare center, in July of 2022.
On July 14th, a week after she’d dropped them off, Rock received a call that no pet owner wants to get. A German Shepherd at Dog Daze had managed to escape from its chain-link run and get into one that contained Xumi and Ruben. It attacked both dogs, and Xumi died from physical injuries suffered from dog bites. Ruben also suffered serious injuries but survived after receiving medical attention. Distraught, Rock immediately flew home.
Humans who are dog bite victims can seek non-economic damages as well as restitution for lost wages and medical expenses not covered by an insurance company. Claims for emotional distress are usually filed with help and legal advice from a personal injury lawyer, particularly in states with strict liability laws.
Despite the deep ties forged between owners and their pets, most jurisdictions treat dogs, cats, and other animals as personal property when determining compensation. While it can vary by state, most legislation assesses animals at “market rate” when replacement becomes necessary, much as they would a vehicle or a piece of art. This can even involve a judge ruling that a divorcing couple must bid against each other in a private auction to determine who gets the beloved family dog. This may seem unreasonable to many pet owners who consider their companions to be priceless.
Rock filed a lawsuit against Freeman and Dog Daze in December 2022, listing Xumi and Ruben as her “family members” in the factual background. She claimed the damage to her well-being caused by the loss of Xumi and the injuries suffered by Ruben went far beyond having their medical bills covered by the defendant. Suffering from ongoing extreme grief, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and emotional distress and pain, Rock brought in a professor of sociology and a specialist in the bonds between humans and their pets to testify as an expert witness.
Due to Freeman and Dog Daze’s breach of contract and gross negligence, Rock argued that the emotional pain she was suffering was no different than that found in personal injury cases and so should be eligible for the same type of relief. This included seeking punitive damages against the defendants for their alleged reckless, careless, and grossly negligent actions. In doing so, Rock didn’t dispute the lower court’s interpretation of South Carolina law with regard to the actual value of pets, but rather looked to see if the legal definition could be changed.
While sympathetic to Rock’s loss and emotional pain, the appeals court upheld the partial summary judgment under Rule 56 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The panel noted that a small minority of states allow emotional distress damages if the pet in question was harmed with intentional or malicious conduct, but it found no evidence that the defendants acted in that manner.
It’s a case where nobody really wins, but someone still has to triumph in a legal sense. The motion filed by the defense only targeted the legality of the emotional distress claims, which means Rock’s lawsuit can continue. However, she’d be bound by the laws of South Carolina, which state that Xumi’s value is only equal to the market worth of a replacement. Rock would likely argue that no such replacement exists at any price.
The post South Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms That Furbabies Remain Personal Property appeared first on .
]]>U.S. citizens are not required by any federal law to provide documentation of their immigration status during an encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. You can clearly state that you are a U.S. citizen, and under immigration law, that should be enough. But, ICE officers have been detaining people while they verify citizenship or lawful status, so carrying proof may help to end an encounter. In addition, there have been several notable and well-reported instances of U.S. citizens being detained despite their legal status.
ICE agents do not have the full jurisdiction of other law enforcement officers, such as police or FBI agents. For example, ICE cannot enforce traffic laws. However, because of the risk of wrongful detentions and discriminatory practices, it is worth taking certain precautions. In addition, recent reporting has raised concerns about internal guidance suggesting that ICE officers might enter or search homes without first obtaining a warrant, even though the Fourth Amendment generally protects against warrantless searches of a private residence and ICE’s own public guidance says agents need consent, a warrant, or an applicable legal exception before entering.
If you encounter immigration officers, it’s generally advised to stay calm. While it helps to know your rights, ICE officers are using aggressive tactics. Staying calm may help de-escalate the situation. Regardless of immigration law, your demeanor, or your citizenship status, you may be detained until officers verify that you really are a citizen, even if you clearly explain that you are. Officers may also not believe you if you say you are a citizen and you have an accent or a darker skin tone.
For this reason, it is a good idea to carry official identification that proves your citizenship, such as your passport or a copy of your birth certificate, especially if your appearance or accent could raise unfair suspicions. Birth certificates do not include photos, so it will help your case to also include your REAL ID, which does include your photo and name. REAL ID is not proof of citizenship, but it is a secure form of identification that generally reflects lawful presence.
ICE officers often suspect that documents are fake when detainees only show a copy or a photo of their identification. However, carrying the originals may also pose a risk if you lose them, so it’s important to keep them safe.
If ICE detains you despite your stating that you are a citizen, you should contact a lawyer immediately. Unlike in a criminal case, immigration detainees do not have the right to a free, government-appointed lawyer, but everyone has the right to hire an immigration lawyer for their case.
Yes, you could, but the answer depends on your specific case.
Cases that may justify lawsuits are those where there was a detention without probable cause, excessive use of force, violations of constitutional rights (such as the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment right to due process, or the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection), racial or ethnic discrimination, serious physical or emotional injuries (excessive force), or detention that results in demonstrable harm (loss of liberty, trauma, medical expenses, etc.).
You can file a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the federal government for negligence or intentional torts, or, in some cases involving local officials, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations. Still, the federal government has immunities and defenses that make these cases more complex, so not all suits result in compensation, as seen in the real-life examples below.
Other notable cases include that of Carlos Ríos, who received a $125,000 settlement after being detained for seven days by ICE in solitary confinement and closely monitored despite having his U.S. passport with him (Ríos asked officers to check his bag and they did not), and Davino Watson, who spent more than 3 years in detention by mistake, even though he ultimately received no compensation. The two‑year statute of limitations for his wrongful detention started running when Watson first appeared before a judge. That meant it expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer.
While the trial court initially awarded Watson $82,500, the Court of Appeals overturned the award based on statute of limitations grounds. Watson’s case is absurd for many reasons. He repeatedly insisted that he was a U.S. citizen, and immigration officers botched the investigation into who his father was. Despite no dispute as to the facts, he spent three years behind bars and was not compensated for it.
All of these examples show that lawsuits are usually based on excessive use of force, detention without adequate verification, or negligence in confirming citizenship.
A civil rights or constitutional law attorney can help you understand if you have a claim against the U.S. government. Of course, if you are an immigrant and have problems related to your status, you should contact an immigration lawyer. However, if you are a citizen and you are detained by immigration agents, the rights that may be violated are constitutional and civil rights, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, and the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Civil Rights Act in cases of discrimination. Therefore, you should seek advice from a constitutional law attorney or a civil rights attorney.
One common point of confusion that is worth clearing up is that a civil rights attorney is not the same as a civil law attorney. A civil law attorney handles private disputes between people or companies, such as contracts, divorces, personal injuries, property disputes, or general negligence lawsuits. In contrast, a civil rights attorney specializes in violations of fundamental rights protected by the Constitution or federal/state laws, such as discrimination, police abuse, unjust detentions by government authorities, freedom of speech, or equality before the law. Cases of citizens detained by ICE require a civil rights attorney who can evaluate claims against the government for constitutional violations.
The post What Should I Do If ICE Detains Me and I am a U.S. Citizen? appeared first on .
]]>Sometimes a death occurs under circumstances that must be reported by law. This could include sudden, unexplained, suspicious, or unattended deaths. If there is no treating physician who can certify the cause of death, law enforcement or medical personnel notify a medical examiner or coroner, who then investigates and may certify the cause of death
Although the names are sometimes used interchangeably, there is a distinct difference in most jurisdictions. A medical examiner is generally an appointed physician, often a forensic pathologist, who investigates deaths, performs or oversees autopsies, and certifies causes of death. A coroner is typically an elected official and is not required to be a physician, although some coroners do have medical or forensic training. A coroner’s responsibilities include investigating deaths, ordering autopsies, and overseeing forensic pathologists or other medical professionals.
Whether a jurisdiction uses a coroner or medical examiner system depends on state laws.
Trick question. You generally do not call a coroner or medical examiner directly; law enforcement or medical personnel do. A coroner or medical examiner becomes involved when the law requires that a death be reported, typically when the death is:
If a loved one was suffering a terminal illness, such as congestive heart failure or cancer, and passed away from a natural death, their treating doctor can sign a statement as to the cause of death. For example, if someone in hospice care dies, a physician would be able to certify the cause of death. It is different, however, if someone dies alone without a treating physician.
In those situations, typically someone will call 911, and law enforcement will assess the situation and contact a medical examiner or coroner. Often, these types of death occur if a person dies:
First, investigators document the scene of death and record any evidence that would help determine the cause of death. Then the deceased is transported to a medical facility where they will be received, assigned a case number, and stored in a refrigerated unit until there is an examination or autopsy. After the examination and cause of death is determined, the coroner or medical examiner will sign the death certificate and release the body, along with personal property, to a funeral home or mortuary as directed by the next of kin. At that time, the funeral director can then proceed with funeral arrangements and burial or cremation.
The legal next of kin may request a copy of the autopsy report from the coroner’s office to find out about the decedent’s manner of death.
A coroner or medical examiner is responsible for examining, determining, and certifying the cause of death. This death investigation may include an external examination, internal organ examination, and may require toxicology or other forensic science tests. A medical examiner may perform the autopsy themselves, while a coroner’s investigation involves ordering a forensic scientist to perform the autopsy.
An autopsy is required when there is a death that is sudden, suspicious, or involves foul play, accidents or public health concerns such as contagious diseases. A coroner or medical examiner orders an autopsy under these circumstances. Although not required, family members may request an autopsy to help identify any genetic medical conditions or get closure on a loved one's death. If a coroner or medical examiner does not deem an autopsy as necessary, the family may have to pay for the autopsy.
Coroners and medical examiners play a critical role when a death is unexpected, suspicious, or cannot be certified by a treating physician. They examine the evidence and the body to explain and document the cause of death so loved ones can proceed with funeral arrangements. However, you may want to contact a personal injury attorney if there is a wrongful death, so they can help ensure proper handling of medical records and reports and advise you about potential claims.
The post When Does a Coroner or Medical Examiner Get Involved? appeared first on .
]]>Certain canine breeds are often classified as dangerous and perceived as posing a violent threat to people. Such stereotyping is often exaggerated and inaccurate, but that doesn’t keep dog shelters from overflowing with unjustly demonized hounds. For some, there’s no such thing as a trustworthy Pitbull, Rottweiler, German Shepherd, or Doberman Pinscher. A breed not typically found on that list is the Shih Tzu, which usually weighs between 9 and 16 pounds. A Shih Tzu is even less intimidating when it’s 12 years old, deaf, and blind.
That made it particularly shocking when a former police officer in Missouri shot Teddy, the non-aggressive Shih Tzu, after he escaped from his yard.
On November 14, 2025, the city of Sturgeon, a small town of about 1,000 residents located roughly in the middle of the state, agreed to a $500,000 settlement over a lawsuit involving the shooting death of Teddy, a 13-pound Shih Tzu that had wandered into a neighbor’s yard. While responding, Sturgeon police officer Myron Woodson failed in several attempts to secure Teddy with a catch pole before drawing his weapon to shoot and kill the reportedly non-aggressive dog.
According to a lawsuit filed by Nicholas Hunter, Teddy’s owner, Woodson lied about Teddy’s demeanor, claiming he shot Teddy because the dog was “injured.” The Mayor and the town came to Woodson’s defense, claiming that Teddy “may have been rabid” and that Woodson had done nothing wrong. Even after viewing Woodson’s bodycam footage, which exposed his lack of training, they maintained their stance and never disciplined Woodson for his actions.
Backed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Hunter filed a federal lawsuit in May 2024 seeking $1 million for violations against his Fourth Amendment rights by Woodson and the City of Sturgeon in the shooting of his blind and deaf dog. Following depositions, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in August 2025. While the settlement won’t bring Hunter’s family dog back, perhaps it can help prevent some of the estimated 10,000 dog shooting deaths by law enforcement each year.
On May 19, 2024, Teddy’s owner was out for dinner when the deaf and blind dog dug his way out of his home’s fenced yard and escaped. During the process, his collar and ID tags fell off and were left behind as he ambled off on his ill-fated adventure.
A neighbor spotted Teddy in their backyard and, after giving him water and getting him settled next to her, attempted to use social media to find his owner. After about an hour without success, she alerted the Sturgeon police department. During the exchange with the dispatcher, she asserted that Teddy was not being aggressive in any manner.
As part of a deal with Boone County, the Sturgeon Police Department also provides animal control services to the community. After arriving on the scene, Woodson did not speak with the neighbor. Clad in latex gloves and bearing a catch stick, he instead attempted to capture Teddy. The body camera footage recorded his repeated failures as he seemed untrained on how to use a catch stick. After the officer had made several attempts, Teddy began to wander away. At no point during the recording did Teddy exhibit threatening or aggressive behavior.
As Woodson followed the dog, he remarked aloud about just getting a blanket and wrapping Teddy up. The lawsuit alleged that this confirmed that he felt he was in no danger from the dog. Instead of trying the catch stick again, Woodson drew his gun and shot Teddy from extremely close range. A few seconds later, he fired another shot into the non-moving dog. It had been approximately three minutes since his arrival.
In the meantime, the dog’s owner had been shown the neighbor’s Facebook post about his missing Teddy. Although he left for the address immediately, it was already too late for Hunter to save his furry friend.
The lawsuit claimed that Hunter met with Woodson at Sturgeon’s City Hall about an hour later. After stating that he’d been there at the scene for at least ten minutes before the shooting and that he’d believed Teddy was injured, Woodson said he wouldn’t have known where to take the blind and deaf Shih Tzu if he’d captured him because Sturgeon didn’t have a pound or a designated location to take stray animals, both of which were untrue. Further discussion revealed that Woodson, who had been an officer for eight months, had never received any training or information about animal control tasks.
Hunter filed a complaint over Teddy’s shooting the following day. Sturgeon’s Mayor Kevin Abrahamson responded by claiming he’d watched the bodycam footage and the city had cleared Woodson of any wrongdoing in the incident. Five days later, Abrahamson resigned. The city council stated that they hadn’t seen the footage before it was shown on a local news station on May 24, nor had they been part of any “investigation” conducted by Abrahamson.
Hunter’s lawsuit claimed an unlawful seizure violation of his Fourth Amendment rights in Teddy’s death. In addition, it charged that Sturgeon carried municipal liability due to the lack of adequate training given to Woodson, who appeared unaware of his animal control responsibilities and procedures as part of his police officer duties. The city also stood accused of not disciplining Woodson, instead giving him $16,000 in back pay after an actual investigation was conducted.
Woodson is no longer a member of the Sturgeon police. In the wake of the controversy, all officers went to Boone County Animal Control for new and additional training. Hopefully, that will help Sturgeon police officers in the future determine when dogs pose an actual threat.
The post Missouri Town Agrees to $500,000 Settlement Over Police Shooting of Elderly 13-Pound Dog appeared first on .
]]>There's a dark side to most new technology. Generative AI is certainly no different, and perhaps has a greater potential for abuse than most. One lamentable use of artificial intelligence involves so-called "nudify" apps. As the name suggests, these apps take ordinary pictures and generate nudes of those images. They have been around since at least 2019 and are one of the first uses of deepfakes. Unfortunately, the harm they can cause has only grown, with instances of cyberbullying, revenge porn, and other harassing and exploitative behavior increasing.
Is this legal? No, not even if you take away the worst use cases, such as generating child pornography. Under the Take It Down Act, any nonconsensual posting or distribution of a nude image is against federal law, whether it is real or computer-generated. Numerous state laws also prohibit the distribution of nonconsensual intimate images.
Despite their illegality, nudify apps are still being used, and a recent article in Wired suggests that these companies, many of which are located outside of the U.S., are raking in millions of dollars. While the developers may be based abroad, users come from all over the world, including a significant amount of traffic from the U.S.
Nudify apps generally have to go through some of the bigger tech companies to reach the public. Nudify apps violate the policies of every large tech company, including Apple, Google, and Meta. However, developers often try to get around security and community standards. For example, they may engineer their apps to behave differently in certain locations, such as anywhere near Apple Park, which can temporarily allow them to get past Apple's reviewers. While Apple will take down the app once violations are reported, the apps still profit (including a 30% cut to Apple), so the problem persists.
Fortunately, both tech companies and the federal government do appear to be taking steps to combat the proliferation of harmful deepfake apps. The Take It Down Act was just enacted in May 2025. Because it is so new, it remains to be seen how federal prosecutors will use the law. It's possible that once prosecutions increase, the use of nudify apps will decrease.
Some tech companies are also taking developers to court. For example, in June, Meta filed a lawsuit against Hong Kong-based company Joy Timeline. It claims that the Chinese company repeatedly circumvented Meta's community standards to advertise Joy's nudify app (which we won't name here to avoid giving them any more exposure).
Hopefully, federal authorities and tech companies can reduce the instances of harmful deepfakes. Meanwhile, however, what can you do if a deepfake of you circulates online?
In addition to the Take It Down Act, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022 created a cause of action for federal lawsuits against perpetrators who distribute intimate photos without consent. Anyone who has had an intimate image of themselves circulated or distributed online can sue in federal court under VAWA. Similar state laws also allow victims to sue in state courts, if they so choose.
Combating exploitative photos online is not an easy task. Fortunately, victims do have rights, and increasingly, tech companies seem willing to tackle such issues collaboratively, such as with the Lantern Project, a tech coalition aimed at combating child pornography and the sexual abuse of minors.
Hopefully, these efforts will pay off soon. If you are the victim of revenge porn or otherwise have had nonconsensual sexual pictures of yourself circulated online, there may be legal options. You can contact a law firm familiar with sexual abuse and harassment cases to learn more.
The post Nudify Apps Are Proliferating Despite Illegality, Lawsuits appeared first on .
]]>The wheels of justice turn slowly. A jury award of $2.4 million may have taken too long for the person supposed to receive it.
Daniel Ridge filed a wrongful termination suit against his former employer in 2017. As the case dragged on, the former morgue attendant's mental health deteriorated due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Becoming estranged from his family, Ridge joined the ranks of the homeless in Oakland, California.
The financial windfall from the outcome of his suit in March 2025 presented an unusual problem for his attorney and loved ones — nobody knows where Daniel Ridge is or how to contact him. Given the significant number of unhoused people in Oakland, locating him will be easier said than done.
Ridge had a difficult childhood growing up in crime-ridden sections of California in the 1980s and 1990s. He lost six friends to gang-related violence and witnessed an uncle burn to death. According to his attorneys, this left him with undiagnosed PTSD.
After becoming a certified nursing assistant, Ridge was hired as a part-time morgue attendant at Highland Hospital in Oakland. It was part of the Alameda Health System. In 2013, the full-time morgue assistant took a leave of absence that would morph into retirement. Ridge picked up the responsibilities of a full-time attendant while only getting part-time pay and not receiving any benefits.
Despite Ridge repeatedly alerting his superiors, his status remained unchanged until Highwood posted a job opening for a full-time morgue attendant. After applying and interviewing, Ridge got the job near the end of 2014.
Ridge alleged that he was forced to go to a different floor for computer access when he needed to do research. He also claimed that the new disposal of formaldehyde procedures left him dizzy and disoriented. His requests for safety gear went ignored for 17 months. There was also an issue of an overabundance of corpses littered around the morgue.
Ridge was diagnosed with PTSD and depression in September 2015. After taking medical leave, he returned to work and suffered a panic attack on October 8. His psychiatrist first recommended six days of leave, which was later extended for the rest of October. Ridge claimed he was informed by a leave management coordinator for Alameda Health System that he was eligible for unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
When he returned on November 1, Ridge was told his employment had been terminated. He later filed a wrongful termination suit.
An Alameda County jury determined that Alameda Health System was liable for $2 million for past and future emotional distress and another $455,000 for loss of past earnings. The company indicated a likelihood of appealing the decision, but if the award stands, where will the money go?
Like many other Americans, Ridge struggled during the pandemic. His mental state deteriorated, making him unable to testify in his ongoing lawsuit. Pulling away from his family, Ridge left his home and vanished.
Finding Ridge, if he is indeed among the unhoused of Oakland, is a formidable task. He's had no contact with his family, and given that shelters often protect the identities of those who pass through, locating someone who may not want to be found could prove daunting.
Ridge's family has grim but perhaps unavoidable options if he can't be found. Under California law they can have him declared dead if no contact is made for five years. If there's no will in place, the award would be given to the appropriate family member. Hopefully, this story will have a happier ending.
The post You Won Your Lawsuit! Where Are You? The Search for a Homeless Man Worth Millions appeared first on .
]]>When a young man planning to go to graduate school and earn a psychology degree saw a ride request pop up on his Lyft app, he probably figured the fare would get him one step closer to being able to pay for his dream. Instead, it turned out to be a nightmare in the form of a trap that cost him his life.
A St. Louis Circuit Judge had dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Andrew Ameer's mother against Lyft. On March 4, 2025, the Missouri Court of Appeals overturned the decision, sending the case back to the St. Louis Circuit Court for what could be a landmark decision regarding the responsibilities and liabilities of ride-share companies.
Like many people who wanted extra income or needed a flexible job schedule, Andrew Ameer turned to the gig economy and became a rideshare operator for Lyft. Through their app, Lyft and other ride-share companies receive ride requests and channel them to their drivers, who are not considered employees but rather independent contractors.
On September 28, 2020, Ameer accepted a fare through the Lyft app at around 11 p.m. When he arrived at the pickup location, he was met by two teenagers. They pulled guns, telling Ameer this was a carjacking and ordering him to exit his vehicle. He was shot multiple times and died from his wounds at a hospital.
The police apprehended the shooter and his accomplices. They were minors who had created a Lyft account on the app using a false name and a false email address. They secured the ride with an anonymous and untraceable gift card.
According to Lyft's safety policies, account holders must be at least 18 years of age. The fact that Ameer's juvenile murderers were able to easily circumvent Lyft's safeguards to create what appeared to be a legitimate account formed the basis for the wrongful death suit.
In her lawsuit, Rochelle Ameer argued that her son's death was preventable and a direct result of Lyft's app. Using a fake account to lure a driver for robbery and carjacking has been a recurring issue for rideshares, along with other problems due to insufficient safety protocols.
Some states require rideshare apps to verify an account holder's identity if they're going to make an anonymous payment, such as through a gift card. Missouri does not carry that requirement. Lyft has not independently created such a system in the state.
A common legal defense used by rideshare companies has been declaring that their platform is not a product but rather a form of technology designed to perform a task. Until the ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, the argument had held water and proved an effective means of thwarting lawsuits.
Those days may have come to an end. By declaring that Lyft's app is indeed a product, the Missouri Court of Appeals has opened the door for litigation over product liability.
Ameer v. Lyft may turn out to be a landmark decision for future cases against rideshare companies if other courts agree with its reasoning. The lawsuit carries strict product liability claims of defective design, negligent design, and negligent failure to warn. It also charges three counts of negligence.
While the appeals court ruled with a narrow focus on the particulars of this case, and is applicable only in Missouri, it stands the chance of setting an important precedent for other claims against rideshare apps. Fallout from the case may also bring about increased safety measures for drivers and passengers, such as in-car cameras and a security barrier between them. Both would help toward helping everyone get home safely.
The post Appeals Court Rules Lyft Open To Possible Liability for Driver's Murder appeared first on .
]]>What was supposed to be a fun weekend centered around a 2024 formal in Nashville turned into a horrible tragedy for a member of the University of Missouri chapter of the Delta Chi fraternity. Approximately one year after Riley Strain's lifeless body was found in the Cumberland River, his family filed a wrongful death lawsuit on March 22, 2025.
At issue is the violation of alcohol-related rules and the alleged negligence of Strain's fraternity brothers, who stand accused of letting an extremely inebriated Strain wander off unattended. The six-count suit names several defendants, including the Delta Chi fraternity, members of the Board of Chapter Advisors, and thirty members of the Missouri fraternity chapter.
According to the lawsuit, Strain was encouraged to rush the Delta Chi fraternity chapter at the University of Missouri in 2020. Among selling points that included future financial success, networking through alumni, and on-campus resources, his recruiters stressed that Strain would be welcomed into a brotherhood that would act as another family.
Founded in 1890 at Cornell University, Delta Chi's recruiting targeted parents of potential brothers. This included assuring them that their children would be kept safe through Delta Chi's alcohol use and misuse policy.
The policy includes the prohibition of any spirits with an alcohol-by-volume (ABV) of 15% or more from chapter facilities or events unless served by an insured and licensed third-party vendor. The lawsuit alleges that these policies were not worth the paper they were written on and largely ignored by the fraternity members.
In Spring 2024, the annual Delta Chi destination formal was designated to take place in Nashville, Tennessee. Brothers were allowed to bring a non-member as a guest, and some brought dates. Strain initially indicated he was not interested in attending, but relented after cajoling and pressure from his Delta Chi brothers.
Departure was on March 8, 2024. Once on the charter buses heading to Nashville, Delta Chi members produced Jello shots made with vodka, which has an ABV averaging 40%. Beer was also available on the buses. Riley was offered several drinks by his brothers.
After their late afternoon arrival in Nashville, the Delta Chi group began hitting bars. As the revelry continued, several fraternity brothers noticed that Strain was noticeably showing the effects of his drinking. By the time they hit what would be the final stop of the night, Strain was unable to stand without assistance and was incoherent. Bouncers in the bar decided he was cut off and forced to leave the bar.
None of Strain's Delta Chi brothers left the bar to assist him. Extremely inebriated and alone in an unfamiliar city, Strain wandered in the opposite direction from the hotel he and his brothers were staying in. After telling a Nashville police officer, "I'm good, how are you?", Strain continued walking before apparently tumbling down a steep embankment and into the Columbia River, which was swollen due to recent rains.
Strain's fraternity brothers weren't concerned when they returned to the hotel and he wasn't there. They alerted the Nashville police at noon on March 9, but it was already too late. Strain had already drowned in the Columbia, although his body wouldn't be found until March 22, some eight miles downstream.
Strain's death was ruled accidental, with no evidence of foul play and a blood alcohol level that caused impairment but wasn't lethal by itself. An investigation determined that he wasn't overserved by any of the bars Delta Chi frequented.
The wrongful death lawsuit filed by Strain's family accuses Delta Chi, the LLC that owns the chapter's fraternity house, 30 of his fraternity brothers, and members of the Delta Chi Board of Chapter Advisors of negligence and vicarious liability. They seek unspecified damages based on his lost earning potential and the pain and suffering endured before his death. No court date has been set yet.
There's no happy ending for anyone involved when a 22-year-old dies from something completely preventable. His fraternity brothers meant him no harm, but a jury will determine if they should have cared about his well-being at a time when he required help.
The post Delta Chi Faces Wrongful Death Suit Over Death of Fraternity Brother appeared first on .
]]>