Under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) of 1935, workers rights are protected. The National Labor Relations Board supervises and interprets legal proceedings related to the NLRA and it’s relation to contemporary social media activity.

In 2012, the National Labor Relations Board determined that if more than one employee participates in using social media to complain or criticize their job, co-workers or boss, they are protected from being fired.  

Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment.

However, employees can’t say whatever they want.  Which comments and activity fit the criteria outlined in Sec 7. is still up for debate. Employees that make these comments on their own, with no participation from others are not protected. In fact, their complaints and criticism could even be considered libel. In such a case, the employee could be terminated.

After Barnes used the facilities at a local restaurant in Erin, Tenn. she received a handwritten bill for $5 in the mail, at her home address. Barnes says that before using the bathroom at Flood Zone, she asked an employee for permission, who said using the bathroom was fine.

But the controversy of it all comes down to how she was mailed the bill. After Barnes left the restaurant, the owner had Barnes’s license plate written down. The owner then contacted the local sheriff, had the plates run, and then released Barnes’s home address to the owner.

Barnes notes that she isn’t upset about the $5 bill, which she tried to pay twice, but the owner refused to accept the money. Instead, she’s upset that law enforcement would release personal information about her. Barnes and her husband are extremely private with their information, due to having a restraining order against someone in their past. Barnes husband noted that, “People don’t have the right to just run your tags and give your information out to just anybody.” 

Local state Rep. John C. Tidwell agrees with the Barnes. “The way I interpret it, it would be illegal,” he said, saying that license plate information should only be used for law enforcement functions. “The information should not have ever been given over to the business. That is information that is supposed to be dealt with by the state’s agency or the official.”

Houston County Sheriff, Darrell Allison disagrees. In fact, he said it happens often.

“I would say that happens every day, it’s a very common occurrence,” says Allison.

Owner of Flood Zone, Lisa (who would not give her last name), has stopped charging to use the facilities. She noted that she only wanted to make a point and didn’t think it would go this far.

What does Wichita think about this situation?

If you were driving down Rock Road and needed to use the facilities at a paying customer’s only business, would you pay? Do you think the owner has the right to make customers pay? What if the police released your personal information? Let us know your thoughts with the comment box below.

Lisa Williams, 42, claimed to have suffered severe dehydration and bruising from aggressive food lines. After returning to Houston, Williams went to the ER and received intravenous fluids.

"She was deprived of the basic fundamental necessities of life, and certainly not what one would expect on a luxury cruise ship,” stated her attorney, Spencer Aronfeld.

In Williams lawsuit, it claims that Carnival failed to "inspect for and to observe and resolve the hazard present within the vessel that ultimately affected all passengers aboard, including the Plaintiff."

The lawsuit also claims that Williams suffered severe and permanent injury due to being exposed to toxic and debilitating conditions.

However, this is isn’t the first lawsuit against Carnival, the first lawsuit was filed on Friday by Cassie Terry, of Brazoria County, Texas.

Do you believe the horrifying conditions that the passengers faced is worthy of a lawsuit? Or is it frivolous that someone would claim that they deserve compensation for bruising and dehydration? Although these are the only two claims so far, we can rest assured, they won’t be the last. 

It all started when a Subway customer from Australia took a picture of his footlong sandwich next to a ruler. It was posted to Facebook and went viral. Since then, Subway has been bombarded with criticism over false advertising.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs in the New Jersey suit, Stephen DeNittis, claims that it is a “deceptive practice for Subway to advertise its large sandwich as a ‘footlong.” DeNittis also went to 17 Subways and measured his sandwiches. Every one came up short of the advertised “footlong.”

Although many people may believe this falls under the category of “frivolous lawsuit,” it is shocking to add up the figures.

“When you add this up over time, that comes out to be anywhere between 45 to 60 cents a sandwich over the course of six years,” said DeNittis.

 According to the suit, Subway should either make sure their sandwiches measure up to the full foot or stop advertising them as a footlong.

Some believe this is frivolous, while others think Subway should be held accountable for false advertising. What do you believe? Do you think two men from New Jersey should receive $5 million or more because they were shorted on a sandwich they paid $5 for? Or do you believe they aren’t entitled to it more than any other customer that has ever ordered a footlong? 

Seau died last May at the age of 43 after 20 seasons in the NFL with the San Diego Chargers, Miami Dolphins and New England Patriots. This claim is quick to follow the numerous complaints that have been filed by thousands of ex-players from the NFL who suffered due to traumatic head injuries. More than 80 suits have been filed by over 2,000 players.

Seau committed suicide after he developed chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) as a result of his time in the NFL. The wrongful death claim accuses the NFL of ignoring evidence tying violent on-field hits to traumatic brain injuries.

Since the 1970’s, the NFL has known about the increased risk of repetitive head injuries, but supposedly did not take measures to address the issue until 1994. From 1994 until 2010, the NFL attempted to control medical literature linking these injuries and post-career brain damage. The NFL is also accused of trying to "produce industry-funded, biased and falsified research" that denies that head impacts lead to serious risks.

To read more about other NFL players filing for traumatic brain injuries, click here.

Riddell Inc., a helmet manufacturer, is also being sued by Seau’s family. Riddell was accused of being "negligent in their design, testing, assembly, manufacture, marketing, and engineering of the helmets" used by NFL players, per the AP.

Should the NFL be held responsible for these injuries, just like employers are held responsible for their employee’s workplace injuries? Or should Seau have known the risks he was taking as he played 20 seasons in the brutal game of football? That’s up to the Court to decide, but we can all agree traumatic brain injuries can be prevented with the right measures. Hopefully the NFL takes these measures soon to prevent further injuries or death.

If you have had a Kansas traumatic brain injury that was not your fault and need medical treatment, you need an experienced professional who can help you get back on the road to recovery. Call us today at 316-269-1414 or visit our contact page here. Our Kansas personal injury attorneys will provide you a free initial consultation and if we take your case you don’t pay a dime unless we recover money for you. Even then we only take a percentage of the total amount of your recovery.

If you have questions on what you should be looking for when you are making a decision to hire a Kansas personal injury lawyer, read our article located here.

Make sure you download our free car accident app for iPhone or Droid to protect yourself in event of an auto accident. 

Wederell’s father Colin Grannell explained how the hours before the surgery were spent explaining the risks. However, he said that not once did they mention it was from a smoker’s lungs.

Doctors explain that she wouldn’t have been better off refusing the lungs, had she known, because she was critically ill and had poor chance of short-term survival. Waiting for another set of organs to become available that matched her blood type and came from a non-smoker was unlikely to happen.

Most hospitals, even in the U.S., transplant the lungs of smokers as long as they are in good condition otherwise. Dr. G. Alexander Patterson, surgical director of lung transplants said his program would only turn down a smoker’s lungs if smoking history was too extreme.

Patterson also said most doctors don’t give detail about the smoking history of the donor unless asked directly. Arthur Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center disagrees.

"They absolutely should have told her. When you have reasons to think a donor organ is suboptimal in some way, you must disclose it and allow a person to make their own decision. People have to know the risks they face," Caplan stated.

The decision of a lower court decision was confirmed by seven justices, all male. The dental assistant, Melissa Nelson, had been employed by Dr. James Knight for 10 and a half years.

The attorney of Dr. Knight took the position that Mrs. Nelson wasn’t terminated because of her gender, but rather in regards to her inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Both her behavior and dress were considered inappropriate to Dr. Knight.

Throughout Mrs. Nelson’s employment, there was never a sexual relationship, but the final year and a half Dr. Knight found her clothing to be too tight and revealing. They also began exchanging text messages. Although Mrs. Nelson ignored a questionable text from Dr. Knight, Knight’s wife found the text message and demanded that he fire his assistant. A senior pastor at their church agreed that the termination was in their best interest to protect the marriage. 

Nelson’s attorney, Paige Fiedler, said, "Although people act for a variety of reasons, it is very common for women to be targeted for discrimination because of their sexual attractiveness or supposed lack of sexual attractiveness. That is discrimination based on sex."

Throughout court documents, Knight agreed that Nelson was good at her job and Nelson stated she was generally treated with respect. After being fired, Mrs. Nelson’s husband tried to reason with Dr. Knight. However, he told her husband that he "feared he would have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her."

This may seem like a very unfortunate accident; however, decks do not collapse without someone having broken the rules of deck safety.

Property owners have a duty to provide a safe property or building. When they fail to keep structures safe or the structure is not built to code, people can easily slip and fall. Falls can occur inside or outside of a building and be caused by such conditions as bad flooring, wet floors, poorly lighted steps, or, in the case of outdoor accidents, weather-related or hidden hazards.

For more detailed information on premises liability in Kansas, go here.

If your property owner has failed to maintain these structures, which led to an injury, you may be entitled to compensation. The same goes for public places such as the mall. You have a right to expect safe conditions in these places. If you have been injured as a result of slippery floor conditions, read our article here.

If you have had a Kansas car wreck injury or a slip and fall injury that was not your fault and need medical treatment, you need an experienced professional who can help you get back on the road to recover. Call us today at 316-269-1414 or visit our contact page here. Our Kansas personal injury attorneys will provide you a free initial consultation and if we take your case you don’t pay a dime unless we recover money for you. Even then we only take a percentage of the total amount of your recovery.

If you have questions on what you should be looking for when you are making a decision to hire a Kansas personal injury lawyer, read our article located here.

First, if you’re in a vehicle, pull a safe distance off the road and turn on your hazard lights. This alerts other drivers and helps the emergency vehicles spot the accident.

Next, don’t assume someone else has called 911. Especially with busy streets such as Kellogg or I-235, many people may witness the accident, but don’t call for emergency help because they assume everyone else has. Even if you witness a minor crash in which the driver could probably call 911 themselves, don’t assume anything. When calling for help, be prepared to answer questions such as your location and how many people are injured.

Don’t move an injured person unless the vehicle is burning or the person is in danger. Moving the injured person can result in worse damage. Even low velocity collisions can result in serious injury. If the driver is able, assist them in moving the wrecked vehicle out of the way of traffic. However, do not move the vehicle yourself unless asked by emergency personnel.

If the victim is injured, you shouldn’t move them, but you can still help comfort them. Providing a blanket to keep them warm or shading them from the sun can help while waiting for the ambulance.

These tasks might not seem like you’re helping much, but it could save a life.

If you have had a Kansas car wreck injury that was not your fault and need medical treatment, you need an experienced professional who can help you get back on the road to recover. Call us today at 316-269-1414 or visit our contact page here. Our Kansas personal injury attorneys will provide you a free initial consultation and if we take your case you don’t pay a dime unless we recover money for you. Even then we only take a percentage of the total amount of your recovery.

If you have questions on what you should be looking for when you are making a decision to hire a Kansas personal injury lawyer, read our article located here.

The US Food and Drug Administration have launched an investigation on the company, which has been linked to five other deaths. Monster Energy contains 240 milligrams of caffeine in one 24oz can.

Fournier’s parents claim that Monster Beverage Corp did not warn consumers about the dangers in drinking its product, despite labels stating that it is not recommended for children and people who are sensitive to caffeine.

Monster has issued a statement in response to the media stating its sympathies to the family of Fournier, but defending its product.

What do you think?

Are your children allowed to consume energy drinks? Should there be limitations on how many energy beverages children can consume or should these drinks be completely off the market? Should an age limit be set for energy drinks such as Monster, Red Bull, Throttle and Rockstar?

Regardless of opinions on the matter, parents should take heed of the dangers of caffeine on children. Talk to your kids about these risks and discuss rules on caffeine consumption.

Don’t forget to get connected to Ray Hodge & Associates on Facebook, Twitter and watch our videos on Youtube!

Several shootings and other violent crimes over the last few months, including four consecutive weeks of gun shots, is what led the city council to make this decision. Most problems occur between the hours of 12:30 and 2:30 a.m. on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. New changes will help the police and bar owners clear out the area more quickly during these hours.

The new ordinance requires establishments with a food or liquor license to prove that 30 percent of the sales are from food sales, otherwise 18-20 year olds cannot enter. Only individuals 21 and older can enter a drinking establishment. The new ordinance also prevents clubs from counting its cover charge towards the food sales.

Although most businesses are supportive of the new ordinance, other business owners have expressed doubt. Operators at Doc Howard’s Lounge believe the new ordinance could prevent them from hosting events such as a wedding reception, where all ages attend. 

Citizens have expressed concerns about the reduced number of establishments that 18-20 year olds can enter. They believe this could lead to more loitering outside of the establishments.

In addition to the ordinance, Wichita police are working towards adding more lighting, cameras, removing vegetation and increasing police presence.

What do you think? Did the city make the right choice to protect Wichita citizens or are they infringing on the rights of 18-20 year olds? Will reducing the amount of establishments that 18-20 year olds can enter help solve the violence rise in violence? Do you believe the new ordinance will unfairly make street vendors suffer in sales?

Although voices from both sides provide good argument, the same message is seen across the city – we need to be proactive in protecting Wichita citizens and preserving historic Old Town.

After complaining of chest pains that radiated to his arm, his attending cardiologist, Dr. Sreenivasulu Gangasani, scheduled a stress test for eight days later, but failed to inform Martinez to discontinue all physical activity.

Lawyers for the plaintiff argued that Gangasani did not take proper medical history and failed to inform Martinez to cease all physical activity until the stress test was completed.

Last week, the jury awarded the family of Martinez $3 million in damages. Originally, the estate sued for $5 million, but after determining Martinez was forty percent liable for his death, it decreased to $3 million.

But should all that information be presented to the jury? Does the fact that it was an extramarital affair with not one, but two people potentially sway the verdict?

This is an interesting legal question that many Judge’s and lawyers would struggle with. Obviously for many, having an extra marital affair of this nature is morally reprehensible. However, is it relevant to the question of whether the doctor failed to inform the plaintiff to discontinue all physical activity. If the plaintiff would have had a heart attack whether he was doing what he was doing or having sex with his wife, is it legally relevant that he was having sex with another not his wife?

While many would argue that the information goes to his state of mind and his lack of concern for his own safety, others would argue that such information is so highly inflammatory and prejudicial that it would turn a potential jury against the plaintiff for all the wrong reasons. Others would say that jurors are capable of acknowledging the reprehensibility of the plaintiff’s conduct but would still be able to set that aside and judge the case based on the sole issue of whether it was negligence for the doctor to fail to advise the plaintiff to cease all physical activity. What do you think?

So are the motorists ticketed on this road entitled to getting their money back? Unfortunately, if their ticket has made it through the court system, they won’t receive reimbursement. On the other hand, motorists with pending citations can protest the ticket with the city prosecutor's office and if the speed traveled is verified and below 55mph, it can be dismissed.

Credit for finding this discrepancy is due to Travis Cunningham, who decided to fight a ticket he received for going 59 mph in a 45 mph zone. His ticket has been dismissed.

Travis is to be congratulated as a champion of Consumers inWichita. Thanks Travis!!!

Because of the the department of transportation and the federal motor carrier safety commission have added rules hoping to put the brakes on cell phone truckers. If a driver of a commercial motor vehicle (any vehicle with a combined weight of 10,000 pounds or more) gets caught while using a cell phone on the road, even while stopped at a red light, he or she can be fined up to $2500. In addition this violation can count up to 30 violation points. It is clear that the DOT is deadly serious about putting an end to cell phone truck driving.

Its no wonder, cell phone drivers, recent studies show are as dangerous as drunk drivers. A car can travel the length of a football field in the time it takes to dial a phone number or send a text.

If you or a loved on have been hurt in a trucking accident, call us now for a free consultation. 316-269-1414

Honda was sued in a class action case and a propose class action settlement was reached that offered people $100 to $200 plus a $1000 voucher for a new Honda. Peter's believes her losses are closer to $10,000 because of the higher cost of the hybrid that she never would have bought if she knew it did not get 50 miles to the gallon.

Under the rules for class actions a single person can file a lawsuit on behalf on thousands of other people who are "similarly situated". These cases result in settlements that require a Court's approval. However, individuals who believe they have more losses than the settlement allows for are permitted to opt out of the settlement. This is what Heather Peters did. Because her damages were still a relatively small amount she sued in small claims court. This eliminated Honda's ability to crush her under the weight of lots of legal paperwork as they have been prone to do in other cases.

The law office of Ray Hodge and Associates, is currently local counsel on two class action anti trust cases. One involves price fixing in the packaged ice industry and the other involves the artificial manipulation of the price of dairy products.
If you belive you have been the victim of an illegal activity that has affected hundreds or thousands of people in Kansas, call us today for a free consultation at 316-269-1414.


Schmidt claimed there was no fraud and said "we're being sued for telling the truth and she actually benefited from having the hybrid."

Carnahan said he was taking the matter under submission and would have a ruling probably next week or at least before the Feb. 11 deadline for people to opt out of the class action case.

Outside court Peters said, "I feel great. I did my best. However he decides it I'm happy I did it. It's brought to light a lot of background stuff that people should know.

"I'm the trailblazer here," she said, "and everyone else can follow what I did."