Subject: Teamsters Objections to Election Rejected Date: Published: 7/11/90 (234 lines) Source: Wall Street Journal. Copyright Dow Jones & Co. Inc. Law -- Legal Beat: Teamsters Objections to Election Rejected ---- By Ann Hagedorn and Wade Lambert Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal A federal judge in New York rejected objections by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to proposed rules for the union's court-ordered elections next year. Judge David N. Edelstein, in a strongly worded opinion, referred to the union's protests as "frivolous," "inappropriate," and "unpersuasive." Moreover, he said, "The IBT's behavior over the past year indicates official rejection of reform -- and with it, free elections." Judge Edelstein stressed the importance of the election rules as "the linchpin" in the government's effort to purge the nation's largest union of the alleged influence of organized crime. "An election under these rules beacons the coming of the light of freedom to this dark union," the judge wrote. Teamsters officials and attorneys couldn't be reached for comment on whether the union plans an appeal. The union is under court order to hold direct, secret-ballot elections next year for top officers as part of its settlement last spring of civil racketeering charges brought by the U. S. attorney in Manhattan. In the past, union leaders were elected at a national convention by delegates hand-picked at the local union level. In its 1988 suit, the government accused the Teamsters leadership of depriving its 1.7 million members of their rights through a pattern of racketeering. The government claimed that organized crime figures had routinely influenced union elections. As part of the 1989 accord, Judge Edelstein appointed three officers to oversee the union as it moves toward the goal of free elections. Election Officer Michael H. Holland, a Chicago lawyer, drafted election rules that he submitted to Teamsters locals early this year. Mr. Holland then visited locals nationwide and in Canada to discuss the rules and hear the concerns. Meanwhile, in Manhattan federal court, the Teamsters' current leadership was voicing its own concerns. The union, for example, challenged the requirement that each local submit a plan to the elections officer outlining such details as its method for counting ballots and the name of the outside agency hired to conduct the election. The judge said, "The election officer cannot supervise this election without the specific information contained in a local union plan." The union also disputed a rule allowing candidates to publish campaign literature in "International Teamster," the internal union organ controlled by the current leadership and distributed to all 1.7 million members each month. The union argued that the rule violated its right to free speech by compelling it to publish specific material. The judge said, among other things, "No opposition candidate may mount a viable challenge to the entrenched IBT plutocracy without standing on an equal footing with regard to distribution of their views." The judge also ruled that the union's membership list may be distributed to the accredited candidates -- a move that both the union and the election officer had protested. There was a danger, they argued, that the list could be copied and used for improper purposes by employers, rival unions and subversive groups. But the judge said that "extraordinary measures are necessary to ensure that this election succeeds." However, the judge prohibited the distribution of the list to third parties. --- SODOMY LAWS in Michigan and Kentucky found to violate state constitutions. In both states, lower court judges rule0]tat the laws violate the right to privacy under the states' constitutions. The decisions reflect the success of a strategy adopted by gay activists four years ago to turn to state courts rather than to federal courts in challenging such laws. The decisions, if upheld by the states' appeals courts, also appear to open a door to the use of privacy arguments in state constitutional challenges to restrictions on abortions. In 1986, the U. S. Supreme Court said the federal Constitution doesn't prohibit states from banning sodomy, and it rejected the right-to-privacy arguments. The constitutions of 10 states, however, explicitly grant a right to privacy. In other states, such as Michigan and Kentucky, such a right has emerged through years of state court decisions unrelated to the sodomy laws. Florida, Arizona, Montana, Louisiana and South Carolina are among the states that have laws banning sodomy and also have specific right-to-privacy protection in their constitutions. Evan Wolfson, an attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a national gay-rights organization based in New York, said Lambda is weighing whether to pursue cases in such states. In the Michigan and Kentucky decisions, both judges said that the right to privacy prohibited the state from banning consensual sexual acts among adults in the privacy of their homes. In the Michigan case, in which the plaintiffs included heterosexuals and homosexuals because the law applies to all people, Circuit Court Judge John A. Murphy of Wayne County said, "The Michigan Constitution embodies a promise that a certain private sphere of individual liberty will be kept largely beyond the reach of the government." A spokesman for Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelley said he will decide in a couple of weeks whether to appeal. A spokesman for Kentucky Attorney General Fred Cowan said it's not clear whether the decision last month will be appealed. In both cases, the attorneys general argued that the laws were constitutional. --- PATIENTS DENIED share in profits from research using their blood or tissue. The California Supreme Court's ruling on Monday was a boon to the biotechnology industry, which feared that litigation by patients might have a chilling effect on the research and development of valuable new products. The suit was filed by John Moore, who sought treatment for a rare type of leukemia at the University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center in 1976. David Goldie, a doctor there, removed Mr. Moore's spleen as part of the treatment. While experimenting with cells from the diseased spleen, Dr. Goldie and a colleague developed a cell line that produces proteins found in the human immune system and is considered valuable in research on cancer and acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The university patented the cell line in 1984. That same year, Mr. Moore sued the university, the researchers and two biotech firms using the cell line, claiming they had misappropriated his bodily material and commercially exploited it without his knowledge or consent. He alleged that as the owner of the bodily materials, he was entitled to a share in the future profits derived from them. The high court found that Mr. Moore was not entitled to a share of the profits from the patented cell line, whose potential value had been estimated at $3 billion. The court said that the patent was not for Mr. Moore's cells but for a product of human invention. The court did allow Mr. Moore to go to trial on his claim that Dr. Goldie failed to disclose his personal financial or research interests before obtaining Mr. Moore's consent to the medical treatment. "Physicians are expected to tell patients about information relevant to their physical condition, such as the side effects of a drug. But it wasn't customary to talk about a doctor's financial or research interests. This adds something new," said Daniel Callahan, director of the Hastings Center, a Briarcliff Manor, N. Y., research organization on ethics and medicine. Sanford M. Gage, Mr. Moore's lawyer, said his client still may be able to recover significant damages if he proves that Dr. Goldie violated a fiduciary duty by failing to inform Mr. Moore of his personal interest in use of the spleen. Mr. Gage said, "We can get a share of the profits, and possibly punitive damages." Richard D. Godown, president of Industrial Biotechnology Association, the main biotech trade group, characterized the ruling as "a very big victory" for biotechnology that had biotech companies "breathing a sigh of relief." He added that "we will simply have to reorganize the consent forms and the procedures used with these forms to make sure that not only medical issues are covered. It behooves everybody involved to be more careful." --- INSURANCE REGULATION rejecting HIV test requirement gets a hearing. The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, agreed to review a lower court ruling that rejected the regulation, which prohibited insurers from using the human immunodeficiency virus blood test in underwriting individual and small-group hospital and medical insurance. Court approval of the New York insurance department's regulation would run counter to the trend of decisions in a handful of other states. Recently, state regulators' attention has focused on getting consent for such testing and maintaining the confidentiality of test results, said an official with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. In August l987, the New York insurance department adopted an amendment to an existing regulation that prohibited insurers from using the blood test for detection of the AIDS virus in underwriting, rating or administering claims for hospital and medical insurance. The ruling also prohibited inquiries regarding the test on health insurance applications or in interviews. New York regulators believe that the HIV test isn't a diagnostic test for AIDS, and that the "denial of health insurance is a most serious consequence of a testing procedure that indicates only an exposure to a virus," said Salvatore R. Curiale, New York's superintendent of insurance. The New York regulation has never been implemented because it was challenged by a group of insurers and trade associations. The state supreme court annulled the amendment in April 1988. The appellate division of the supreme court upheld that ruling in February. --- MCKENNA, CONNER & CUNEO will split into two financially separate branches. The 250-lawyer firm was formed in 1980 from a merger between Washington-based Sellers, Conner & Cuneo and Los Angeles-based McKenna & Fitting. Two years after the merger, each branch reverted to independent management, though their finances remained linked. The current financial divorce proceedings will further separate the branches, which will coordinate some work with each other but have little else but their name in common. Partners at McKenna Conner say the two branches may ultimately sever their ties completely. The law firm's trouble operating as one unit appears to reflect differences between the two branches in the types of clients they cater to and in their strategies for future growth. Charles Yonkers, managing partner of the firm's Washington office, said the East Coast branch, which has traditionally focused on government contracts work, is now trying to diversify its practice. By contrast, Mr. Yonkers said, the West Coast branch has continued to focus on its traditional clientele, financial institutions. Lawyers and consultants say the recent push toward law-firm consolidation has prompted some firms to rush blindly into unsuitable mergers. "Firms today are in such a hurry to merge ...that they miss critical steps," said Howard Mudrick, who specializes in law-firm mergers at Hildebrandt Inc., a Somerville, N. J., consulting firm. --- Amy Dockser Marcus and Beatrice E. Garcia contributed to this article. [This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]