High Court Action

Nov. 6
, 2000 -- Freelancers to Have Day in Court Labor Dispute Reaches High Court Court Passes on Multiple Defendant Case Court Stays Out of Cellular Dispute

Court to Decide Copyright Case

Taking on an Internet-age dispute, the SupremeCourt agreed today to decide whether The New York Times and otherpublications violate freelance contributors’ copyrights by puttingtheir articles in electronic databases.

The court said it will hear arguments by the Times, Newsday,Time Inc. and two database companies that they can put freelancearticles—already published in their print editions — in onlineand CD-ROM databases without separate permission from the authors.

The authors contend the newspapers and magazine paid for theright to publish the articles in their printed versions, but thatthey did not have the right to republish them electronically.

The companies said a lower court ruling in the authors’ favor“sets a national rule requiring the destruction of decades’ worthof articles” stored in electronic archives.

The lawsuit was filed in New York by six freelance authors whosold articles to the Times, the Long Island newspaper Newsday, andSports Illustrated between 1990 and 1993. Sports Illustrated ispublished by Time Inc. Also named in the lawsuit were theelectronic database companies Lexis/Nexis and UniversityMicrofilms.

The lawsuit said those companies violated the authors’copyrights in their articles by republishing them in onlinedatabases or CD-ROMs.

The federal Copyright Act says newspapers and magazines canrepublish such articles in a “revision” of the originalpublication.

The Times and other companies said the electronic versions werea “revision” of the original newspaper or magazine, and thereforethey did not need separate permission from the authors to put thearticles in their databases.

A federal judge agreed with the companies. But the 2nd U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in September 1999 and ruled forthe authors. The court said publications cannot put freelancearticles in online databases without specific permission from theauthors.

In the appeal acted on today, the companies’ lawyers said the2nd Circuit court’s ruling would be “disastrous for the nation’slibraries, academic institutions and publishers.”

The authors’ lawyers said the companies exaggerated the possibleeffects of the ruling.

The case is New York Times Co. vs. Tasini, 00-201.

Court Hears Arbitration Case

The Supreme Court heard arguments today onwhether employers can require workers to resolve labor disputesthrough arbitration rather than litigation.

Arbitration is the preferred method of settling disputes for agrowing number of companies, so the case is being watched closelyby civil rights and business groups.

The case before the court stems from a lawsuit by Saint ClairAdams, who was required to sign a document agreeing to settle anypotential labor grievance through binding arbitration beforeCircuit City Stores Inc. would hire him in 1995.

A year later he quit, then filed a lawsuit that allegedco-workers at a Santa Rosa, Calif., store harassed him because heis gay, and the company did nothing when he complained.

A federal District Court judge threw out the case, but the 9thU.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. That courtruled the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act specifically excluded“seamen, railroad employees or any other class of workers engagedin foreign or interstate commerce,” which the court said includesAdams.

Business groups say arbitration is more convenient, lesstime-consuming and cheaper than lawsuits to settle grievances.Critics say workers forfeit certain rights when they go before aprivate arbitrator rather than a judge. Appeals often are limited,damages are capped, and severe restrictions are placed ondiscovery, the process by which a worker’s lawyer may gatherinformation to buttress the case.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a policyrecommendation in 1997 against mandatory arbitration. Several civilrights groups, including the National Association for theAdvancement of Colored People and the National Organization forWomen Legal Defense Fund, have sided with Adams.

Almost one-fifth of the national work force is covered byarbitration agreements, according to the General Accounting Office,the investigative arm of Congress.

The argument before the high court is whether an exclusion tothe 1925 statute should be broadly interpreted to include workerssuch as Adams. Other appellate courts have chosen a narrowerinterpretation than the 9th Circuit.

The case is Circuit City Stores vs. Adams. 99-1379.

Justices Decline Multiple Defendant Case

The Supreme Court will not clarify whetherprosecutors may claim different versions of the same events at thecriminal trials of separate defendants.

The court, without comment, today let stand a lower courtruling that said prosecutors were out of bounds in a Missourimurder case that involved six defendants.

The 8th U.S. Court of Appeals overturned Jon Keith Smith’sconviction in the 1983 robbery and killing of an elderly couple,saying in effect that Missouri prosecutors could not have it bothways.

State prosecutors pointed to Smith as a chief culprit at his1987 trial, which included testimony from an alleged accomplice.

The alleged accomplice had told authorities that all six peoplewere involved in the killings, but on the stand at Smith’s trial hesaid only two people were killers. He admitted being part of aburglary ring but said he and Smith arrived at the scene after thekillings.

The prosecutor produced the earlier statement, argued that allsix were involved from the start and won murder and armed robberyconvictions against Smith.

A few months later the same prosecutor put the allegedaccomplice on the stand during the trial of another of the sixdefendants. The defendant was one of the two that the allegedaccomplice had named as the killers at Smith’s trial.

This time, the prosecutor did not object when the allegedaccomplice repeated the allegation that only two people wereinvolved in the killings.

Smith claimed that his rights were violated when prosecutorsstood behind two different versions of events. The federal appealscourt, which covers Arkansas and six Midwestern states, agreed.

State prosecutors sought high court blessing of their approach,arguing that each defendant was treated fairly.

The case is Gammon vs. Smith, 00-354.

Court Avoids Cell Phone Tower Case

The Supreme Court stayed out of a dispute overhow much leeway local governments have to control cellulartelephone companies’ installation of antennas to broaden theirservice areas.

The court, without comment today, turned down OmnipointCommunications Enterprises’ argument that it was improperly refusedpermission to install an antenna in Newtown Township, Pa.

Omnipoint sued under the 1996 federal Telecommunications Act,which bars local governments from enacting laws that would“prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision ofwireless services.”

Omnipoint applied for a permit to put antennas on top of anapartment building in Newtown Township. The town zoning boarddenied the permit in 1998.

The company sued, and a federal judge ruled for the company. Thejudge said Newtown’s zoning policy violated the telecommunicationslaw because it, in effect, barred placement of antennas anywhere inthe township. Other companies were able to install antennas becauseofficials “looked the other way,” the judge said.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision lastMarch. The court said it is not sufficient for a cellular phonecompany to show that it was denied a chance to fill a gap in itsown service area.

The case is Omnipoint Communications vs. Newtown Township,00-353.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.