The American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit Wednesday that accused a Boeing Co. subsidiary of helping the Central Intelligence Agency facilitate "the forced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment" of three men the government suspected of terrorist involvement.

"This is the first time we are accusing a blue-chip American company of profiting from torture," ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said at a news conference in New York City.

Since at least 2001, Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. of San Jose "has provided direct and substantial services to the United States for its so-called ‘extraordinary rendition’ program," the suit, filed in San Jose federal court, alleges.

Extraordinary rendition is a highly secretive and extrajudicial practice of transferring terrorist suspects to third-party countries that routinely practice torture and other ill-treatment, according to the ultra liberal Human Rights Watch.

The suit was filed on behalf of Binyam Mohammed, a 28-year-old Ethiopian citizen and British resident; Abou Elkassim Britel, a 40-year-old of Moroccan descent naturalized in Italy; and Ahmed Agiza, a 45-year-old Egyptian. But the suit said that Jeppesen provided flight and logistical support services for more than 70 extraordinary renditions over a four-year period.

Johnny Grant, the longtime Hollywood showman and Tinseltown’s unofficial mayor, has seen a lot of star antics over the decades.

But from his penthouse apartment atop the trendy Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, Grant, 84, said he’s not happy about what he’s seeing today — especially amid investigations focusing on underage starlets partying at Hollywood hot spots.

So went the finger-pointing on Hollywood Boulevard and the Sunset Strip as the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board was poised to investigate the case of actress Lindsay Lohan, who was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence after what tabloids and paparazzi said was a night of partying.

ABC spokesman John Carr said that after the Beverly Hills Police Department provides evidence that alcohol was in Lohan’s system, the agency would try to determine whether the 20-year-old actress was illegally served liquor. Police have only said that Lohan’s blood-alcohol level was over the .08 legal limit after her arrest early Saturday.

ABC is seeking a 15-day closure of the club Mood on Hollywood Boulevard after photos last year showed several underage stars, including Lohan and singer Jesse McCartney, partying there.

An attorney for Mood said the bar has become a scapegoat and that more focus should be given to how underage patrons get fake identifications and why their parents don’t better monitor their behavior.

"Put the blame where blame should be, with the minor," said attorney Stephen Solomon, adding the club diligently checks the IDs of all young-looking patrons. "That’s the person you should worry about going after."

Officials in West Hollywood said they hope the Lohan case serves as a cautionary tale for bars.

Mayor Pro-Tem Jeff Prang said businesses roll the dice if they allow underage celebrities to drink in their establishments.

California’s Insurance Commissioner recommended Tuesday that insurers slash the rates they charge businesses for workers’ compensation coverage by 14.2%, topping the 8% cut proposed by the largest insurer.

The Commissioner also warned insurance companies that he would send in auditors to make sure they don’t delay or deny needed medical care for injured workers, citing complaints from advocates for injured workers.

In calling for the rate reduction, the Commissioner cited "historic, record-low" insurance company payouts. Although it’s only a recommendation, insurers have generally gone along with the rate cuts proposed by the insurance commissioner.

Things could be different this time, however.

The government-controlled State Compensation Insurance Fund, the California market leader, has filed for a much smaller reduction of 8% for its 230,000 customers. A fund spokesman declined to discuss the filing.

The Insurance Commissioner credited the 2003-04 workers’ compensation changes with helping employers cut their insurance payments by as much as 65%. But he voiced concern that insurers could be improperly using review procedures to block needed care.

At issue is a change in treatment protocols for injured workers known as utilization reviews.

The workers’ comp overhaul gave employers the right to send workers to company-contracted clinics for immediate care and longer-term treatment, including surgeries. Those treatment plans, however, can be second-guessed by specialized doctors.

Employers argue that the reviews, often by out-of-state doctors who never see the patient, use objective standards that lead to lower treatment costs. But advocates for injured workers — and some of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s own regulators — counter that the reviews have sometimes been used to deny needed care.

Indeed, a survey released by the California Division of Workers’ Compensation in March showed that 22% of injured workers said they were dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied with their care. In the same survey, 65% of medical providers said they believed that care for injured workers had declined since 2004.

In a setback for employees who sue over job bias, the Supreme Court just ruled that they cannot rely on evidence from years past that shows they were unfairly paid less than their co-workers, even if this past discrimination continues to depress their salaries today.

Instead, employees must point to a "discrete act of discrimination" by their employer in the 180 days before they filed suit, the court held by a 5-4 vote.

By enforcing strict deadlines, the decision narrows the scope of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against employees because of their race, sex, religion or national origin.

It will also apply to the laws that bar discrimination against employees based on their age or disability.

Corporate lawyers called it a major victory for employers because it shields them from defending against discrimination claims from the past.

The ruling threw out a pay discrimination claim brought by a woman who for nearly 20 years was the lone female supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Gadsden, Ala. The woman had sued the company in 1999 and showed she was being paid 15% to 40% less than the men who held the same job.

A jury sided with her and awarded her back pay of $224,000 and nearly $3.3 million in punitive damages.

But the company appealed, arguing she filed her claim too late, and it won a reversal from a U.S. appeals court in Atlanta.

In this recent ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with the company and said her suit should have been thrown out at the start because it relied on evidence of discrimination in the 1980s, not on unfair pay decisions in 1998 or 1999.

The woman could not show that, because of her gender, she was denied a pay raise in those years. She did maintain, however, that her salary was unfairly low because of earlier discrimination.

That kind of old evidence does not suffice, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., speaking for the majority.

Employees cannot rely on the "adverse effects resulting from past discrimination," he said.

Alito said Congress set "quite short deadlines" when it passed the anti-discrimination law. They reflect "a strong preference for the prompt resolution" of disputes involving the workplace, he said.

"Ultimately, experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural requirements … is the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of justice," Alito said.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas agreed.

The liberal dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the decision ignored "the realities of the workplace."

Most employees do not know what their co-workers earn, she said. And by the time they learn they have been shortchanged, it may be too late to sue, she said.

She urged Congress to "correct this court’s parsimonious reading" of the law.

Women’s rights group denounced the ruling and said it severely weakened the nation’s civil rights law. It "essentially says tough luck to employees who don’t immediately challenge their employers’ discriminatory acts," said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center.

The National Federation of Independent Business welcomed the ruling, saying it will spare small-business owners the burdensome task of defending themselves against an alleged discrimination claim that occurred years in the past.

Britain’s egal profession is about to profit from a landmark change in India that will allow foreign law firms to set up shop there for the first time.

Senior Indian ministers told a City of London delegation led by the Lord Mayor this week that they would push through a parliamentary Bill allowing foreign firms to set up local operations by the end of the year.

Stuart Popham, the senior partner of Clifford Chance, the largest law firm in the world, which has annual revenues in excess of £1 billion, said that a relaxation of the foreign lawyer rules would prompt him to act as soon as possible to establish a presence in India. Bombay has fast become a huge financial center, where most of the world’s big investment banks have a presence. Opening the market-place to foreign law firms would accelerate its transformation into a global trading hub.

The Indian Government estimates that it must spend $320 billion on infrastructure in the next five years to sustain economic growth of about 9 per cent a year. Analysts put the figure closer to $500 billion. These projects, mainly private-public partnerships, will require legal servicing but at present they are off limits to foreign lawyers on the ground in India, thanks to the Advocates Act, a 45-year-old law that restricts the profession to Indian advocates.

As a child, Traci Hong came from South Korea to the United States as a legal immigrant. Fifteen years ago, she became a U.S. citizen. Yet in March, when Hong, now 37, applied for a congressional staff job, an employee screening system that is the linchpin of the Senate’s immigration legislation told a different story: It flagged her as being here illegally.

Hong spent eight days navigating the bureaucracy to correct a database error and convince officials that she was entitled to work here — and she’s an immigration lawyer, a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and its law school.

The screening system, called Basic Pilot, is run by the Department of Homeland Security. So far, it’s being used by only about 16,700 employers — 2,100 or so in California — out of 7 million nationwide.

But it would dramatically expand into a national electronic employment verification system under the Senate proposal; within 18 months, it could be used to check every new hire in the country. As the legislation is written, all 150 million workers in the U.S. would have to submit to the checks within three years.

Supporters call Basic Pilot an efficient blueprint to increase enforcement of laws that bar the hiring of illegal immigrants. It is a central component of what has been dubbed the "grand bargain" between Democrats and Republicans on immigration; in fact, the bill’s proposed guest worker program couldn’t begin until the verification system was capable of screening every new hire in the country.

But opponents — who include conservatives, small businesses, human resource managers and civil liberties groups — are dubious. They say the current program infringes on privacy, doesn’t stop identity fraud and will become more expensive and cumbersome as it expands, bogged down by technical problems and a database with inaccurate information.

Businesses check eligibility by submitting information from an I-9 form, required of all new hires, which includes Social Security and other documentation showing an employee’s right to live and work in the U.S.

If the information is valid, the system sends the business a confirmation. If not, a "tentative nonconfirmation" is returned, and the business asks the employee to provide additional proof of identity or citizenship. Files are even checked by hand before the government finally identifies an employee as illegal.

Although the Internet-based process usually takes seconds, any glitch can take days to resolve. About 200 businesses join the program each week; so far this year, Basic Pilot has processed 1.7 million inquiries — the same as in all of 2006.

Even as more businesses join the program, the system’s error rate of 5% is falling. But a Social Security Administration report last year estimated that 17.8 million Social Security records, or 4.1%, contained discrepancies that could tie up the system.

Traci Hong, for example, was stopped because her records, like those of 7% of naturalized foreigners, failed to indicate that she had been granted U.S. citizenship. A change in immigration status, marriage or divorce needs to be reported to Social Security, said Moran of the National Immigration Law Center.

Basic Pilot has become popular as workplace enforcement becomes a grass-roots issue.

This year, lawmakers in 41 states are considering legislation to strengthen workplace enforcement of immigration laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Tennessee Senate approved a bill this spring mandating the use of Basic Pilot by all employers in the state; Rhode Island lawmakers are considering a similar measure.

Proponents say it is the most affordable way to crack down on illegal immigrants.

When he was arraigned last July, civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman wore shoes adorned with the skull and crossbones and turned the traditional "not guilty" plea upside down by pleading "presumed innocent."

But Wednesday, a more subdued Yagman, in a gray suit and tie, showed deference to the federal justice system he so often criticized as his trial for tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud began.

The combative litigator, famed for his police abuse cases, sat quietly as Assistant U.S. Atty. Beong-Soo Kim told jurors that Yagman hid his assets — including his 2,800-square-foot Venice home — from tax collectors.

Yagman is accused in a 19-count indictment of money laundering and committing bankruptcy fraud to avoid paying more than $200,000 in state and federal taxes.

He has alleged in court filings that the case is a "vindictive prosecution" based on his "contentious history with federal law enforcement agencies."

Yagman has relentlessly criticized federal law enforcement, prosecutors and judges for allegedly failing to uphold civil rights laws, particularly in matters of police abuse. Recently, he has sought writs of habeas corpus on behalf of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

In court documents, Yagman’s lawyer Barry Tarlow noted that his client previously tangled with the two law enforcement agencies investigating him. As a special prosecutor, Yagman investigated the FBI in the Ruby Ridge shootings. And he sued the IRS in 1994 over violent conduct by an agent and won a $650,000 settlement.

U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson refused to dismiss the case based on the allegations but has allowed the defense to question the motives of the federal agents who launched the inquiry.

If the pretrial motions and opening statements are an indicator, Yagman’s team, led by Tarlow, plans to challenge nearly every aspect of the investigation.

Generally, prosecutors’ opening statements are longer than the defense’s. On Wednesday, Kim’s opening statement ran about 45 minutes, while Tarlow’s went well beyond three hours.

As is common in financial prosecutions, the facts of the case are not so much in dispute as what they mean.

For every piece of evidence Kim used in an effort to show that Yagman had purposely concealed his assets, Tarlow raised an alternative explanation for the transaction.

He said Yagman transferred the deed of his home to his girlfriend to give her a sense of security in their relationship, after she moved from Orange County to be with him.

"When she got to L.A., she had no career, no full-time job; his friends became her friends," Tarlow said. "It was a tangible demonstration by him: ‘I love you, I will take care of you.’ "

Tarlow added that Yagman had only $100,000 in equity in the home at the time.

The prosecution alleges an elaborate conspiracy that includes: Yagman depositing all of his income into Mattox’s account and signing checks in her name, placing $600,000 in money he received from elderly relatives into an investment account he opened in her name, and filing for bankruptcy in New York so the trustees would not find his assets in California.

As Yagman was trying to get the IRS to allow him to pay his debt on an installment plan, Kim said, he took a $3,000 trip to Aspen, Colo., and then traveled to Europe, where he spent about $22,000 on two credit cards that he maxed out — debt that would be canceled with his bankruptcy.

Tarlow countered that one doesn’t have to be poor to file for bankruptcy and that Yagman had for years done things differently from other people: He hadn’t had his own checking account since the 1970s and had deeded a previous house in Mar Vista to his then-wife, Marion, in 1980.

Tarlow also said Yagman receives so many death threats that he often tries to conceal his address. "When he was married to Marion Yagman, the utility bills were in the name of her grandmother," he said.

And he has long "domiciled" in New York, Tarlow said. He has an apartment there, his driver’s license is from there, and he votes there.

If convicted, Yagman could face up to five years in prison on each of the tax evasion and bankruptcy charges, and 10 years on each of the money laundering counts.

Citing an alleged misrepresentation by Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, a judge ruled Wednesday that four people can seek punitive damages against the Los Angeles Archdiocese for failing to protect them from a priest they accused of sexual abuse.

The ruling, the first of its kind in the Los Angeles clergy sexual abuse scandal, could increase pressure on the archdiocese to reach a settlement with its accusers.

More than 500 people have alleged that they were abused by priests in the archdiocese, and many also have alleged that the church knew about the danger but failed to act.

If all of them are granted permission to seek punitive damages, Mahony could face a potentially enormous payout.

The first of the cases is set to begin trial June 11. The judge also ordered the archdiocese to submit to extensive interrogation and disclosure about its finances. The risk of huge payoutsis that 500 punitive damage awards could bankrupt the church and while the church has a lot of valuable real estate it does not have that much cash. A large punitive award could force them to liquidate a lot of assets.
 
Church lawyers did not oppose the accusers’ motion for punitive damages and one lawyer said that the decision neither decided nor influences the ultimate issue of whether such damages are appropriate in such cases.

Punitive damages are awarded on top of compensatory damages, to punish or make an example of a wrongdoer for actions motivated by fraud or malice.

The ruling from Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Haley J. Fromholz came in the case of Father Lynn Caffoe, 61, who is accused of molesting children in the period from 1975 to 1991, when he was withdrawn from the ministry and sent for psychological treatment. The trial over his alleged abuse is set for August.

Mahony wrote to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope, that Caffoe had videotaped "partially naked" boys in a state of sexual arousal. The tape was "objective verification that criminal behavior did occur," Mahony wrote, according to papers filed in the Caffoe litigation in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Six months later, Mahony told parishioners, in a written report which he described as the "fullest possible disclosure" about the sex abuse scandal, that the videotape depicted "improper behavior" with high school boys. But Mahony then said that the boys were "fully clothed" and that there was no sexual activity.

Fromholz also cited complaints from at least six priests about Caffoe’s familiarity with children over the course of his ministry as well as reports from parents and church school officials of misconduct.

If the case goes to trial, a jury would decide whether the church should be punished for the actions of its disgraced priests. The Judge found that the evidence that the accusers’ lawyers had presented so far "establishes a substantial probability that plaintiffs will prevail on the punitive damages claim."

"Certainly the judge’s ruling today on this motion really gives added incentive to the defense to settle," USC law professor Jody Armour said. "He’s clearly signaling to both sides, especially the defense, that a jury is likely to find there is malice, fraud or oppression just on what he has seen at this point."

The Food and Drug Administration has just approved the first birth control pill designed to eliminate a woman’s monthly period.

The new pill, called Lybrel, uses a combination of low-dose synthetic hormones used in other oral contraceptives now on the market. But all of the 28 pills that come in a monthly pack will contain active ingredients, forgoing the placebo tablets that normally allow menstruation to begin.

In the last four years, contraceptive makers have introduced a variety of products designed to minimize the frequency and duration of periods.

Yaz, made by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, and Loestrin 24 Fe, from Warner Chilcott, came on the market last year with the promise of shortening periods to four days or less. Seasonale and Seasonique, sister products from Barr Pharmaceuticals, limit periods to four times a year.

Lybrel, from Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, takes the trend a step further by attempting to suppress periods altogether. The company plans to begin selling the pill in July.

But Lybrel doesn’t quite reach that goal, based on the results of two clinical trials involving 2,400 women ages 18 to 49.

According to the FDA, the women experienced unscheduled breakthrough bleeding or spotting, though the incidence of such events decreased over time. In one study, 59% of women who took Lybrel for one year reported no bleeding during the last month. Many women stopped taking the pill after experiencing unscheduled bleeding.

In a European clinical trial, Lybrel prevented pregnancies in all 323 women who took it, according to Wyeth.

Birth control pills contain synthetic versions of estrogen and progestin that prevent ovulation. Without such production of an egg, a pregnancy cannot occur.

The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 11.6 million American women use birth control pills, but it is unclear how many might prefer a product like Lybrel.

Lybrel may appeal to women who take the pill to prevent such problems as menstrual cramps and migraine headaches, or to control endometriosis, Bustillo said.

Wyeth and other drug companies say their research indicates many women want a pill to stop their periods. But product sales have not lived up to the drug makers’ expectation.

Sales of Seasonale amounted to $100 million in 2006, or less than 1% of the $1.7-billion oral contraceptives market.

Analysts expect Lybrel sales to hit $40 million this year and grow to between $150 million and $250 million annually by 2010.

Wyeth has not said what it expects to charge for Lybrel, but birth control pills typically cost $20 to $45 a month.