Category: Litigation

"The Sins of the Father": Third Party Retaliation Claims Allowed to Proceed

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article written by Ralph A. Morris of Schiff Hardin LLP about third-party retaliation claims :

A recent Texas federal court decision has further expanded the bases for Title VII retaliation claims against employers. In Zamora v. City of Houston, Christopher Zamora, a Houston police officer, alleged that the Houston Police Department demoted him in retaliation for the filing of a charge with the U.S. EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). In this case, however, the charge was not filed by Christopher Zamora, but by his father, Manuel Zamora, alleging that he, Manuel Zamora, had been discriminated against by the Department.

Earlier this year, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, the United States Supreme Court permitted an employee’s Title VII retaliation claim to proceed where the employee’s fiancee had earlier filed an EEOC charge. The Court held that a Title VII retaliation claim could stand where the employee is subject to an adverse employment action because a co-worker to whom the employee is “closely related” engaged in protected activity.

The Supreme Court decided Thompson while the Zamora case was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. After the Thompson decision was issued, the Zamora court reversed its prior determination that dismissed Christopher Zamora’s claim. The court concluded that under Thompson, Mr. Zamora’s retaliation claim could proceed based on his father’s filing of an EEOC charge. Thus, under Zamora, in addition to a fiancee, a parent-child relationship satisfies the “closely related” test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Thompson.

Retaliation charges and lawsuits typically are more challenging to defend because the employee’s burden of proof is not as difficult to meet, as compared with a charge of discrimination. Thompson and Zamora now place an additional burden on employers by holding that employees themselves do not necessarily need to engage in the protected activity to have standing to sue for retaliation. These decisions may have a greater impact on employers that make it a practice to hire family members and friends of existing employees than on those with anti-nepotism policies.

The Supreme Court refrained from identifying a fixed class of relationships for which third-party retaliation claims are viable. Future cases will have to decide how far retaliation claims will be expanded: whether, for example, partners involved in a romantic relationship but who are not engaged, or familial relationships more distant than parent and child, are sufficiently close so as to fall within the zone of protection. Employers can help reduce the risk for these types of claims by reviewing their EEOC and anti-retaliation policies and ensuring that managers are trained and educated on compliance.

© 2011 Schiff Hardin LLP

Hooters Sues Competitor over Alleged Trade Secrets Theft after Top Executives Fly Away

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Eric H. Rumbaugh, Luis I. Arroyo and Steven A. Nigh of Michael Best & Friedrich  LLP regarding  misappropriating its trade secrets and other confidential business information following the departure of several Hooters executives:

 

Hooters of America LLC has sued a competitor in Georgia Federal Court for allegedly misappropriating its trade secrets and other confidential business information following the departure of several Hooters executives to Twin Peaks Restaurants.

Hooters’ complaint alleges that former vice president of operations and purchasing, Joseph Hummel, gained unauthorized access to Hooters’ computers and took trade secrets and other confidential information. Specifically, Hooters claims that around the time of his departure, Hummel downloaded and transferred confidential sales figures, employee training and retention strategies and purchasing information to his personal e-mail account. The suit also accuses Hummel of additional unauthorized access of private business information following the termination of his employment.

Hummel, as well as Hooters’ former Chief Executive Officer and its general counsel, left the beach-themed restaurant franchise to join up with Twin Peaks, which operates a mountain lodge-themed restaurant chain featuring an all-female wait staff. Hooters contends that Hummel’s alleged theft has allowed Twin Peaks to hit the ground running in its efforts to open 35 restaurants in the next decade, several of which are planned for markets with Hooters restaurants.

The case illustrates the potential damage that departing employees, particularly those with access to sensitive information, can wreak on an employer. Hooters has already taken one step towards protecting itself; before Hummel left, he signed a confidentiality agreement requiring him to return all confidential and proprietary information to Hooters. In addition to confidentiality agreements, employers should consider having their top executives or other employees with access to sensitive information sign non-competition agreements. Moreover, most states’ trade secret statutes require businesses to take steps that are reasonable under the circumstances to protect their confidential information in order to preserve the trade secret status of that information. Accordingly, employers should consider implementing electronic security measures beyond just login credentials; limiting the number of employees who are authorized to access confidential information; and regulating employees’ ability to take information off company premises.

Next, when key employees depart, and especially when they depart for a competitor, businesses should consult with counsel immediately, and before examining (and arguably damaging) electronic evidence. Departing employees who take information often leave a shockingly obvious electronic trail; but that trail can be lost quickly if not preserved, or inadvertently destroyed if improperly accessed.

Lastly, businesses engaging talent, and especially talent that comes from a competitor, cannot be too careful or too forceful in making sure that the incoming talent does not make, retain or transfer any copies of information from their previous employer. Businesses engaging talent that acted improperly on the way out can quickly embroil their new employers in costly and risky litigation.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

ZIPped Back Up: Williams-Sonoma Gains Federal Dismissal Of New Jersey Consumer Privacy Claim in Feder

Recently published in the National Law Review an article by Theodore C. Max of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP regarding the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey joined the New Jersey Superior Court in weighing in on the issue of whether a retailer violates consumer privacy state law by requesting a customer’s zip code at the point of purchase.

In Feder v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey joined the New Jersey Superior Court in weighing in on the issue of whether a retailer violates consumer privacy state law by requesting a customer’s zip code at the point of purchase.  Feder was brought by the same plaintiff’s lawyers and with claims similar to those in the state court case Imbert v. Harmon Stores, Inc.(Bed, Bath & Beyond). Imbert was decided last month, but without any written decision, and permitted that case to proceed past the pleading stage. The District Court in Feder, however, issued the first written opinion under the New Jersey statutes, finding that allegations that a zip code was verbally requested could not support a claim under New Jersey law.

Both Feder and Imbert involved plaintiffs suing under New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”), alleging that a store’s requirement that customers provide their zip codes during a credit card transaction violates their rights under the TCCWNA. The TCCNWA prohibits a seller from “offering, entering into, giving or displaying a written consumer contract or notice that violates a clearly established right of the consumer.” N.J. Stat. Ann. 56: 12-15.  As a predicate for the TCCNWA claim, both Feder and Imbert relied on the Restrictions on Information Required to Complete Credit Card Transactions (“Restriction Statute“). The Restriction Statute prohibits a retailer from requiring a customer to provide “personal identification information” to complete a credit card transaction, thus providing the basis for violation of a “clearly established consumer right.”

Senior District Judge Walls in Feder granted Williams-Sonoma’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege conduct that violated the TCCWNA because she failed to identify a particular provision of a written consumer contract that violated her rights. Feder pled that the credit card transaction form constituted the written consumer contract.  Judge Walls, skeptical of this assertion, reasoned that even if the form qualified as a contract, plaintiff’s recorded zip code and verbal request for the same did not constitute a contract provision. Consequently, Judge Wales found that plaintiff failed to satisfy the elements of TCCNWA because “[t]he alleged requirement that plaintiff provide her zip code would only violate the TCCWNA if it was a provision of a written contract.”  Plaintiff also alleged that her rights were violated under the Restriction Statute — not by the recording of her zip code — but by the requirement that she provide her zip code. However, the Restriction Statute does not provide for a private right of action, and, as discussed above, a claim under Plaintiff’s proposed private vehicle for enforcement, the TCCNWA, failed.

Williams-Sonoma also argued that if the credit card transaction was considered a written consumer contract, the court must consider all terms of that “contract” including the point of sale signage at Williams-Sonoma stores expressly stating that when a zip code is requested it is used for marketing purposes, and that providing it is voluntary and is not a condition of processing the transaction. The Restriction Statute differs critically from California’s Song-Beverly in that New Jersey’s Restriction Statute only applies to information being “required,” whereas Song-Beverly also applies to a “request.” This issue was not presented inImbert. However, since the District Court ruled on the TWNCCA, it did not need to reach this issue.

One additional anomaly between the Feder and Imbert cases is that in Imbert the state court permitted the plaintiff to proceed with an invasion of privacy claim. However, when presented with Williams-Sonoma’s Motion to Dismiss, Feder abandoned her invasion of privacy claim in her Opposition because the Motion revealed she had previously provided her contact information to Williams-Sonoma. Feder also filed a cross-motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint, which the District Court denied as futile.

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Second Circuit Finds that Employers May be Obligated to Accommodate a Disabled Employee's Commute

Posted in the National Law Review an article by attorneys James R. Hays, Jonathan Sokolowski and James R. Hays of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP regarding disabled employees and employers requirements to assist them:

 

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, employers may be required to assist disabled employees with their commute.

In Nixon-Tinkelman v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 10-3317-cv, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16569 (2d Cir. N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011), plaintiff Barbara Nixon-Tinkelman (“Plaintiff”), who has cancer, heart problems, asthma, and is hearing impaired, brought suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act alleging that the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (“Defendant” or “DOHMH”) failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Specifically, following her transfer from Queens to Manhattan, Plaintiff requested that DOHMH accommodate her commute by transferring her back to an office location closer to her home in Queens. DOHMH ultimately denied Plaintiff’s request.

The Southern District of New York dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that activities which “fall outside the scope of the job, like commuting to and from the workplace, are not within the province of an employer’s obligations under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.” However, on appeal, the Second Circuit faulted the district court’s holding, explaining that certain circumstances may require an employer to provide commuting assistance to a disabled employee, and furthermore, that providing such assistance is not “inherently unreasonable.” Accordingly, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court, and tasked it with engaging in the “fact-specific inquiry” necessary to determine whether it would have been reasonable to provide Plaintiff with a commuting accommodation. On remand, the Second Circuit directed the district court to consider the following factors: (a) Defendant’s total number of employees; (b) the number and location of Defendant’s offices; (c) whether other positions exist for which Plaintiff was qualified; (d) whether Plaintiff could have been transferred to a more convenient office without unduly burdening Defendant’s operations; and (e) the reasonableness of allowing Plaintiff to work from home without on-site supervision.

In addition to the above-listed factors, the Second Circuit also noted that the district court should have contemplated whether transferring Plaintiff “back to Queens or another closer location, allowing her to work from home, or providing a car or parking permit” would have accommodated her needs.

Nixon-Tinkelman serves as a reminder to employers that they must carefully assess all requests for reasonable accommodations from disabled employees. Although employers are not required to provide the specific accommodations employees may request, they must nevertheless work with employees to determine what reasonable accommodations, if any, can be made.

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Medical Marijuana User Not Protected from Termination

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Darren A. Feider  of Williams Kastner regarding medical marijuana and employment:

A developing exception to Washington law of employment at will is the tort of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. This narrow exception was recently tested in Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care, 171 Wn.2d 736 (2011), when a new hire employee asserted that her employer had violated Washington public policy for terminating her for a positive drug test for marijuana.

In Roe, the new hire claimed to suffer from migraine headaches, causing chronic pain, nausea, blurred vision and sensitivity to light. Her physician prescribed medical marijuana and she smoked it four times a day, but ingested it only at home. She was offered a position as a customer service representative contingent on a background check and a drug screening. After failing the drug screening, the new hire informed her supervisor she had been prescribed medical marijuana. Her supervisor informed her that use of medical marijuana violated the company drug policy and terminated her employment during the training phase. She sued the company for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding that medical marijuana merely provided an affirmative defense to criminal prosecution under Washington state drug laws but did not imply a civil cause of action in employment. She appealed.

On appeal, the Roe court recognized that the voters of Washington had provided a defense to caregivers and physicians who prescribed marijuana to those with certain illnesses such as the new hire. That statute, however, did not provide protection for employment and specifically noted that the law did not require any accommodation of on-site use of medical marijuana.

The Roe court had focused on the language of the medical marijuana statute which only discussed protecting health care providers. The court also emphasized that there was no evidence that the statute provided employment protection or prohibited an employer from discharging an employee for medical marijuana use. The court found that the statute did not support a broad public policy that would remove all impediments to authorized medical marijuana use or forbid an employer from discharging an employee because she used medical marijuana.

The Roe court also recognized that Washington patients have no legal right to marijuana under federal law, which has the effect of establishing that there is not a broad public policy that would require an employer to allow an employee to engage in illegal activity.

The take-aways from the Roe decision are that Washington courts will move cautiously in expanding the scope of legal protections for employees. Washington courts will not attempt to graft on an expansion of the public policy tort claims. The Roe decision also emphasizes that employment in Washington is at will and that any public policy exceptions are narrowly construed.

© 2002-2011 by Williams Kastner ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Administrative Law Judge Finds Employer Unlawfully Discharged Employees Based on Facebook Posts

Recently posted  in the National Law Review an article by Stephen D. Erf, Heather Egan Sussman and Sabrina E. Dunlap  of McDermott Will & Emery regarding the NLRB found that an employer unlawfully terminated five employees because they posted comments on Facebook:

In a first of its kind ruling, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that an employer unlawfully terminated five employees because they posted comments on Facebook related to working conditions.  This is a landmark decision because, up to this point, employers have only been able to rely on the prosecution trends of the General Counsel’s office, including a recently issued report on the topic, and not actual decisions by the adjudicative body of the NLRB.

This landmark case involved an employee of Hispanics United of Buffalo (HUB) (a nonunionized organization), who posted a message on Facebook sharing critical comments made by a coworker concerning employees’ poor job performance and asking for the employees’ reactions.  Five employees commented on the post, defending their job performance and criticizing the critical employee and their working conditions, including work load and staffing problems.  HUB later discharged the Facebook poster and the employees who responded to the post, stating that their comments constituted harassment of the critical coworker.

Based on an unfair labor practice charge filed by one of the employees, the NLRB’s Buffalo Regional Director issued a complaint in May 2011. The ALJ heard the case in July and, on September 2, issued a written decision finding that the employees’ Facebook posts were protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because they concerned a conversation among coworkers about the terms and conditions of employment and the employees’ conduct was not sufficiently inappropriate as to lose the protection of the NLRA.  The ALJ awarded the employees back pay and ordered HUB to reinstate the five employees.  The ALJ also ordered HUB to post a notice at its Buffalo facility explaining to employees their rights under the NLRA and committing not to violate those rights in the future.

While NLRB complaints related to social media have been on the rise, this is the first ALJ decision specifically addressing employees’ use of Facebook.  As a result, employers are wise to consider the ALJ’s decision when disciplining employees based on social media activity.

© 2011 McDermott Will & Emery

Behavior Modification: Trial Lawyer's Edition

Posted in the National Law Review on September 22, 2011 an article regarding a lawyer that was defending himself, pro se by Kendall M. Gray of Andrews Kurth LLP:

 

Just about the time you think there is nothing new under the sun or nothing interesting to blog about, the legal profession continues to astound and amaze.

More specifically, trial lawyers will never let you down.

On Monday I was trolling my usual blog buffet and I saw this item on the ABA Blogabout a lawyer that was defending himself, pro se, in his own criminal trial.

You know the old saying, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. But this guy took it to a whole new level. He was essentially appearing in court with the human equivalent of a canine shock collar:

Four U.S. marshals will be in the courtroom as attorney Paul Bergrin goes on trial in federal court in Newark, N.J., next month in a racketeering case in which he is accused of operating his law firm as a criminal enterprise and conspiring with another New Jersey lawyer to murder government witnesses.

But that’s not not enough security, court officials apparently have decided. Bergrin, who is defending himself pro se, will also wear a hidden ankle bracelet. If he moves too far from his assigned area of the courtroom and violates rules against approaching the bench or the jury, he could get a jolting electric shock from the marshals, via the bracelet, . . . .

A jolting, electric shock for trial counsel who neglects to seek permission before approaching the bench?

Now this could come in handy. Really, really handy . . . .

Of course, my first thought was that the Supreme Court of Texas might find such a device useful for all of those trial lawyers who handle their own appeals when they are prone to wander from the podium in order to re-deliver their closing argument:

  • But do you give the button to Chief Justice Jefferson? He might be too restrained, nice guy that he is.
  • One button to each member of court? That could be dangerous, especially if all nine are fighting to get their questions answered. That gives new meaning to the words “hot bench.”
  • Maybe just give “the button” to Justice Hecht as the senior justice empowered to act on behalf of the court?

I’m probably just a bad and vindictive person, but I began to daydream about all the other habits of trial lawyers that such a device might plausibly correct. The list began to expand rapidly with everything from pet peeves that make my head explode to matters of real substance.

But before I publish my own list, I want to hear from you:

  • What are the things that other lawyers do that drive you crazy or make it harder to successfully do your job in representing the client?
  • What behaviors would you change if you could?
  • And in particular, what do lawyers do, often without thinking, for which you might give them a zap?
  • And what about you judges out there? Be anonymous if you need to, but what lawyer conduct do wish was Taze-worthy?

Use the comments. Weigh in. Speak out.

Or else.

© 2011 Andrews Kurth LLP

Broker Malpractice Claim Does Not Require Expert Testimony Proving Reasonableness of Underlying Settlement

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Dana Ferestien of Williams Kastner  regarding the reasonableness of an underlying products liability settlement is not a prerequisite to a broker malpractice claim.

 

On September 12, 2011, United States District Judge Lonny Suko ruled in Colman Coil Manufacturing, Inc. v. Seabury & Smith, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102238, that expert testimony regarding the reasonableness of an underlying products liability settlement is not a prerequisite to a broker malpractice claim.

The insured manufacturer had been sued for damages caused by an ammonia link in their equipment. Their liability insurer, Wausau, provided a reservation of rights defense, but filed a separate coverage action seeking a declaration that the policy’s total pollution exclusion eliminated coverage. Based upon advice from both their personal coverage counsel and appointed defense counsel, the insured elected to settle the products liability lawsuit for $1.15 million, with the insured paying $450,000 of the settlement. The insured then sued its broker, Seabury & Smith, alleging that their negligence had resulted in incomplete insurance.

Seabury & Smith argued on summary judgment that the professional malpractice claim failed, as a matter of law, because the insured did not have any expert to establish the reasonableness of the underlying settlement. Judge Sukorejected the argument, noting that there is no Washington authority imposing any expert testimony requirement. Judge Suko distinguished this scenario from cases in which there has been a consent judgment to settle the underlying liability claim. The Court concluded that it is for the finder of fact to weigh whether the insured acted reasonably in settling the underlying claim.

© 2002-2011 by Williams Kastner ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

NLRB Permits Micro-Units In Specialty Healthcare Decision

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Mark A. Carter of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding NLRB’s controversial decision to overturn 20 years of precedent:

In one of its most controversial decisions to date, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has overturned 20 years of precedent and will now permit unions to organize a minority share of an employer’s workforce. As a result of this decision, organized labor will be able to establish footholds in businesses where the majority of the employees may not desire to be represented by a union. 

On August 26, 2011 the NLRB released its decision in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011). In Specialty Healthcare, the United Steelworkers petitioned for a representational election in a bargaining unit that was very distinct from the typical “wall to wall” unit. For decades, the NLRB has concluded that where employees share a “community of interest” that the appropriate bargaining unit in a representational election should include all of the employees of the employer who are similarly situated. Typically this type of unit is called a “wall to wall” bargaining unit and its common description includes all “production and maintenance” workers employed by the employer excluding clerical, administrative and security employees. This scope of employees insured that the union would be elected where the majority of the employer’s employees desired to be represented by a union, but that where a majority of the employees did not desire to be represented, their terms and conditions of employment, and their workplace, would not be impacted by the presence of a labor union. Moreover, the “wall to wall” unit insured that there was not a fracturing of the employer’s workforce where several unions represented several small groups of employees making the collective bargaining unmanageable for any of the parties.

This logical and longstanding policy of Democratic and Republican majority labor boards has been scuttled.

In Specialty Healthcare, the employer operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center in Mobile, Alabama. Among the job classifications – or job titles – at this facility is a “CNA”, or, certified nursing assistant. Rather than seeking to represent all of the employer’s employees, the union petitioned for a bargaining unit consisting only of the CNAs. The employer objected on the basis of the NLRB’s decision in Park Manor Care Center, 305 NLRB 872 (1991) and the Board’s longstanding practice of not certifying “fractured” units but insisting that all of the employer’s employees who shared a community of interest comprised an appropriate bargaining unit. The NLRB, through a regional director, initially concluded that this petition was appropriate and directed an election be held amongst only the employer’s full and part time CNAs. The employer appealed this decision, in essence, by asking the NLRB to review the regional director’s decision. The NLRB not only accepted this obligation but requested briefs from interested parties regarding whether its decision inPark Manor and its longstanding practice of certifying only bargaining units of all of the employees with a community of interest should remain the law. Significantly, the NLRB also requested interested parties’ positions regarding whether its decision should have application in all industries rather than just the health care industry which maintains unique standards under the National Labor Relations Act.

After inviting and, presumably, considering this argument, the NLRB reversed the Park Manor decision and will now permit appropriate units to be petitioned-for and certified even when larger and “more appropriate” bargaining units exist in the employer’s workforce.

“Nor is a unit inappropriate simply because it is small. The fact that a proposed unit is small is not alone a relevant consideration, much less a sufficient ground for finding a unit in which employees share a community of interest nevertheless inappropriate.”

To that end, the NLRB wrote that it will focus on the community of interest of the employees, the extent of common supervision, interchange of employees, geographic considerations “etc., any of which may justify the finding of a small unit.” An employer can challenge the determination regarding the composition of the unit, but the Board will now require that the burden to establish that a bargaining unit is not appropriate will be an “overwhelming” community of interest between the employees in the petitioned-for unit and the larger workforce.

“…when employees or a labor organization petition for an election in a unit of employees who are readily identifiable as a group (based on job classifications, departments, functions, work locations, skills, or other similar factors) and the Board finds that the employees in the group share a community of interest after considering the traditional criteria, the Board will find the petitioned-for unit to be an appropriate unit, despite a contention that employees in the unit could be placed in a larger unit which would also be appropriate or even more appropriate, unless the party so contending demonstrates that employees in the larger unit share an overwhelming community of interest with those in the petitioned-for unit…”

The NLRB did agree that cases may exist where the petitioned-for unit inappropriately “fractured” the workforce. For example, had the union petitioned only for CNAs working the night shift vs. all employees, or only CNAs working on the first floor and not the second floor, but it is eminently clear that the Board will direct elections and certify bargaining units of employees simply because they have one job title or job function and permit the union to ignore the other employees with distinct job titles or functions even when that means that the minority of the employees overall support the union. The reality is that all of the employees will have to deal with the union.

Employers should take no stock in some press suggestions that this decision has limited application to the health care industry. There is no holding or assurance that the rule is limited to the health care industry merely because the case arose within the health care industry. Rather, employers will be well served to heed the opening of Member Brian Hayes dissent which is absolutely accurate:

“Make no mistake. Today’s decision fundamentally changes the standard for determining whether a petitioned-for unit is appropriate in any industry subject to the Board’s jurisdiction.”

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Fan Death Re-Emphasizes MLB Ballpark Safety

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding risk, death and baseball…

Risk, death and baseball: three exciting topics that have unfortunately converged to become a grave concern for Major League Baseball this season. One fan recently died in Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, Texas, while reaching over a railing for a ball. Last summer, another fan fell 30 feet and fractured his skull.

Rangers Ballpark, the site of a recent fan death that has caused all MLB teams to re-evaluate fan safety.

Risk, death and baseball: three exciting topics that This, combined with some other high-profile incidents at ballparks in recent years, has led all teams to reconsider the height of their safety railings and ponder other potential solutions to keep spectators safe.

Yesterday, ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” program featured a great investigative report into the matter. You can watch Texas Rangers owner/legend Nolan Ryan discuss the controversy here. And below is the opening paragraphs of their written story.

Ronnie Hargis remembers his right hand brushing Shannon Stone’s shorts as he tried to grab the 6-foot-3-inch firefighter who went over a front-row railing in Section 5 of Rangers Ballpark in Arlington.

But Hargis missed. Stone’s 6-year-old son Cooper, who had been standing next to Hargis, saw his dad fall 20 feet to the concrete below. Stone, 39, died about an hour later.

Even though Hargis struggles to come to terms with the events of July 7, he does not believe that the 33-inch railing that Stone fell over was too low. He joins a cadre of fans who disagree with the Rangers’ decision to raise all front-row railings to 42 inches in response to Stone’s fall and two other falls before it.

As officials with other Major League Baseball ballparks say they’re currently reviewing their railings, baseball fans are divided on whether to raise the railings, keep them where they are, or implement alternative safety measures, such as nets.

It isn’t just the Worldwide Leader who is interested in how teams are keeping fans safe, however.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2011 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.