On February 18, 2021 a decision was entered in the case of Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) at the 2nd district Court of Appeals in California. The court concluded that “Brown adequately pled her cause of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodation for her disability.” They reversed a lower courts decision that had ruled in favor of LAUSD.
Brown is a teacher in the LAUSD school district. After the school upgraded their Wi-Fi system Brown experienced, “chronic pain, headaches, nausea, itching, burning sensations on her skin, ear issues, shortness of breath, inflammation, heart palpitations, respiratory complications, foggy headedness, and fatigue, all symptoms of Microwave Sickness or EHS.”
Brown sued LAUSD after efforts to obtain reasonable accommodations failed. The trial court ruled in favor of LAUSD. Brown appealed that decision and won. The appeals court based their decision on California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) which provides disability protections independent of, and above and beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Excerpt from the Decision:
“The Legislature has stated its intent that “physical disability” be construed so that employees are protected from discrimination due to actual or perceived physical impairment that is disabling, potentially disabling, or perceived as disabling or potentially disabling.”
“FEHA states a “physical disability” includes, but is not limited to, “any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that does both of the following: Affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin and endocrine…Limits a major life activity…`Major life activities’ shall be broadly construed and includes physical, mental, and social activities and working.”
You can read the decision here: Brown vs LAUSD
JML Law Wins Appeal in ‘Unprecedented’ Disability Case Against LAUSD For Failure to Accommodate Teacher With Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity https://www.accesswire.com/viewarticle.aspx?id=637661&token=hzivngfkuma2h2xz6rhu
The city of Berkeley won against the powerful CTIA, the wireless industry association who appealed Berkeley’s ordinance which requires cellphone retailers to provide customers with this notice:
“To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”
The appeal was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges determined that “there was no irreparable harm based on the First Amendment or preemption, that the balance of equities tipped in Berkeley’s favor, that the ordinance was in the public interest, and that an injunction would harm that interest.”
More information about the ordinance and the lawsuit here: http://www.saferemr.com/2014/11/berkeley-cell-phone-right-to-know.html
A lawsuit against Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) has been filed in Superior Court of California. The plaintiff, John Echols, alleges three causes: negligence, public nuisance, and unfair business practices related to the forced installation of utility smart meters.
Mr. Echols refused to allow the smart meter on his residence and refused to join the opt out program due to SMUD’s discriminatory fees. He declined having a smart meter because of the dangers of pulsed radiation that smart meters emit, and the health risks to his family.
SMUD charged Echols the opt-out fees despite his argument that he never opted out, and he never opted in. SMUD eventually forced a smart meter onto his home, followed by cutting off his power completely, during a Sacramento heat wave last summer (2013). His power was eventually restored, but without a meter and his bills were estimated.
The situation continued with legal complaints made by Echols which went unresolved at SMUD. In December Echols filed the law suit against SMUD. The court filing can be found here: http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1114179096387-71/Echols+v+SMUD+Complaint.pdf
In 2012 SMUD board members mocked customers who did not want smart meters on their home, and laughed about how much they’d have to pay to opt-out. A SMUD director said, “The $166 upfront will convince them they can really afford a lot of tin foil hats” [laughter]…Another director says, “But they are already wearing them!” http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smud-smart-meter-shenanigans/
While the SMUD board was laughing all the way to the bank with federal stimulus funding for smart meters, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a halt to wireless smart meters to protect public health. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/american-academy-of-environmental-medicine-calls-for-a-halt-to-wireless-smart-meters/
Julinska and Kniasev are artists who purchased the mountaintop home as much for its inspiring 360 degree view as for the privacy it afforded. They said the jury verdict was a victory for themselves and every other Vermont resident bullied by an imminent domain process that takes property for public good without always compensating property owners fairly.
With the support and representation of the Citizens for Safe Technology (CST) Society & the Coalition to Stop Smart Meters, a class action has been brought against BC Hydro by Salt Spring Island resident, Nomi Davis.
The action was commenced on July 25, 2013, through the filing of a Notice of Civil Claim with the B.C. Supreme Court registry in Vancouver. Smart Meter Class Action Filed
David M. Aaron, counsel for the Plaintiff stated, “The lawsuit asserts that the home is a private domain where free choice and autonomy rule. It claims a right of control over environmental exposures generated from one’s own domestic dwelling; and it alleges that BC Hydro has unlawfully leveraged its monopoly powers to violate that right by coercively and deceptively imposing a smart meter on the Plaintiff and other members of the Class.”
Steve Satow, CST advisory board member said, “If BC Hydro has forced a smart meter on you, threatened to cut off your power or refused to provide you with power unless you accepted a smart meter, then you may fit within the Class of persons on behalf of whom this claim is brought.”
The lawsuit seeks relief, including an order that BC Hydro remove unwanted smart meters as well as a permanent injunction restraining BC Hydro from exacting payment in exchange for an opt out.
Sharon Noble, CST Director commented, “Freedom to control the possible carcinogens emitted from one’s own home is not a luxury, it is a right. We will not stand by and let a government authority extort a payment in exchange for the preservation of our rights.
“We want free choice, free of charge – and we want it now.” -Sharon Noble, CST Director
In April 2013 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer released a detailed report explaining its designation of smart meter and other radiofrequency emissions as a possible human cancer agent.
Nomi Davis is a Salt Spring Island yoga teacher on whom a smart meter was imposed in a deceptive and coercive fashion against the resistance of Davis and her supporters.
B.C. Hydro will have 21 days (from being served) to file its defence pleading (Response to Civil Claim) after which the Plaintiff will seek to have the action certified under the Class Proceedings Act.
Attorneys David Kyle and Paul Overett have filed a mass tort lawsuit against two California utilities: Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for health damages from exposure to smart meters, and or smart grid. Also named in the lawsuit are smart meter installer companies, Corix and Wellington and smart meter manufacturers, Itron and Landis and Gyr, with possibly more defendants to be added as the lawsuit progresses.
Attorney David Kyle has previously won a small claims lawsuit against SCE over smart meter installation, and settled with PG&E in a wrongful death suit involving an alleged smart meter fire.
Sixteen plaintiffs, ten SCE customers and six PG&E customers allege they suffered health effects ranging from headaches, insomnia, chronic fatigue, ringing in the ears, dizziness, heart palpitations, to heart attacks and medical implant interference from exposure to smart meters.
The suit alleges the defendants withheld important safety information associated with the use of smart meters as well as multiple violations of CA laws, including California Civil Code section 1710 which defines deceit as an untrue assertion or suppression of a fact so as to mislead.
Plaintiffs allege negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and deceit, and products liability.
Elizabeth Barris, organizer for the lawsuit invites customers from other California utilities, including municipally run utilities, whose health has been effected by smart meters or smart grid to join the lawsuit. Elizabeth can be contacted at 310-281-9639 or email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Press release from our Canadian friends at CST:
BC Hydro has taken the draconian step of cutting off power to a customer who refused to accept a wireless smart meter.
Last May, a Hydro customer had a wireless smart meter installed on her home despite her refusal. This person suffers from electro-sensitivity and, as a consequence of the radiofrequency radiation emitted by the wireless smart meter, her health began to deteriorate.
Despite pleading for months with Hydro to remove the wireless meter and to re-install the analog meter; they refused. Finally, with her health in jeopardy, she ordered a non- radiating analog meter from a company in the US that provides calibrated, tested meters to utility companies. With the supervision of a certified electrician the analog was installed, and the wireless smart meter was returned to Hydro.
When Hydro advised that the analog was not approved by Canadian agencies, the customer located a Canadian analog meter that met all the requirements and then asked Hydro to install it. Hydro refused, ignored her health condition and insisted that she must accept a wireless smart meter or they would cut her power.
On April 17, 2013, Hydro followed through with its threats and cut off its supply of power to her home.
Hydro’s conduct constitutes a violation of our autonomy and our right to determine what potentially harmful emissions do or do not occur from within our own domestic environment; our right to be free from physical intrusion by the state.
Due to Hydro’s actions over the last 2 years, culminating with its cessation of service to a customer for refusing to allow the installation of a wireless smart meter, the Citizens for Safe Technology Society and the Coalition to Stop Smart Meters are filing a class action lawsuit.