Remembering Judith Faust, social worker, teacher

Judith Faust

Judith Faust, instructor emerita at the School of Social Work at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), and an extraordinary human being, died Sunday. 

Judith was a dear friend of mine and my wife's when we lived in Arkansas in the 20-aughts. I am sorry that, since moving to the northeast, we did a poor job staying in touch beyond the occasional greeting card. Judith died comfortably in hospice from cancer, a friend caring for her, Amy Freer, reported on Facebook.

Judith continued teaching in the Arkansas Public Administration Consortium (APAC) after retirement. Her personality juxtaposed an earnest commitment to good works and a light-hearted spirit. Here is her APAC biographical statement, which I suspect she wrote.

Judith Faust sometimes describes herself as "an organization junkie," having long been fascinated by how organizations work, and especially by what community-based nonprofits can accomplish. She's retired from the faculty at the University of Arkansas Little Rock, having for two decades taught graduate students in social work about nonprofit management and community practice. Her own work has included directing a program for runaway and homeless youth, a management-support organization for Arkansas nonprofits, and the state's Division of Children and Family Services. She volunteers presently with KUAR, the Quapaw Quarter United Methodist Church, and pretty much whomever asks her.

In case you wonder about such things, her undergraduate degree—a double major in journalism and philosophy—was earned from the University of Kansas, and her graduate degree—an MSW with a concentration in community organization and planning—from Tulane University.

We were privileged for many years to share a book group with Judith. She was thoughtful and insightful, and always we looked forward to delighting in her erudite company. Her home was packed with books, filling every available space, with shelves built into every corner and nook. You could pull down any title, and she could recall her impression of it, as well as the time of life in which she had read it and how it shaped her worldview.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Judith Faust (@judithfaust)

With his permission, I share from Facebook (Nov. 10) the well stated sentiments of our friend Andrew Eshleman, now a philosophy professor at the University of Portland. Andrew succinctly captured my own experience, memory, and impression of Judith better than I can.

Just learned that a former colleague, Judith Faust, has died. We became friends while working together on the Faculty Senate at UALR, and she gets a good bit of the credit for showing me how that sort of work could be a rewarding and meaningful part of my career. But, oh!—then to see (from afar after moving away) her ongoing grit, honesty, thirst for understanding, and embrace of what's rich and beautiful in every nook and cranny of life during a long battle with cancer.

Here's Judith, from a few years back, to members of an email group following her difficult journey: "I think I'm finally coming out of the emotional woods. And those are the woods that count, aren't they? Life happens, in its glory and cruelty and ordinariness and all the uncounted shades between, and how we are, how we really are, is about how we experience it."

Then, with her signature honesty, she would acknowledge the ongoing struggle to experience things as she hoped as challenges multiplied. What a privilege to walk a little bit of life's path with such a soul.

Amy on Facebook wrote: "For those asking, while she did not outline wishes for a funeral service, donations on her behalf to one the following charities (hand-picked by Judith herself) would be most welcome:"

• Progressive Arkansas Women (PAC)
• ACLU of Arkansas
• Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts
• Little Rock Public Radio (KUAR/KLRE)
  
• Central Arkansas Library System Foundation
  

Judith touched many, many lives and left them better than she found them.

Law student vets collect food for hurricane victims

VLA members
UMass Law photo

Massachusetts State Rep. Chris Markey (D-Bristol) presented a citation to the Veterans Law Association (VLA) at UMass Law yesterday in recognition of the group's collection of about 300 pounds of nonperishable food for residents of Florida and North Carolina impacted by recent hurricanes.

Timothy Trocchio, 3L and Army veteran, accepted the citation for the group, which also recognized the work of the Student Bar Association. It's my privilege to serve as faculty adviser to the VLA.

Rep. Markey and Trocchio
UMass Law photo

VLA student leaders have brimmed with initiatives this academic year to support veterans in the law school and in our state and local communities, besides coordinating service work such as the food drive. The organization board comprises Trocchio, president; Sean Pillai, vice president; Cameron Sweeney, treasurer; Bryce Mayo, secretary; and Morgan Richter, social media manager. Pillai and Mayo are vital contributors in my Comparative Law class this semester; they and Sweeney are alumni of my Torts I & II.

Law students speak to barriers to legal education

Quinn, Spangler, D'Arcangelo, West, and Wood
Presumed ©; used with permission.

A gifted group of law students shared their personal experiences in access to legal education at the National Lawyers Guild "2024 #Law4ThePeople Convention" in Birmingham, Alabama, Friday.

UMass Law NLG chapter members formulated and proposed the program, "Changing The World, One Legal Education At A Time," which was accepted in a competitive selection process. Here is the abstract:

The panel will consist of law students with lived experience addressing the barriers, opportunities, and realities of accessing a legal education as members of underrepresented populations. Framed by issues of persistent inaccessibility, the panel will share the unique challenges they encountered while applying to and attending law school. Furthermore, each panel member will deconstruct how the barriers they’ve encountered influenced their career trajectories following graduation. In addition to their stories, Dean Quinn will share administrator perspectives on outcomes of programs and support for underrepresented populations unique to their school. Finally, the panel will discuss where they see opportunity for improvement.

The panel comprised 3Ls Daniela D'Arcangelo and Liz West, and 2L Rebecca Wood, chapter president. Wood, an alumna of my Torts I & II classes, appeared on The Savory Tort in the summer in recognition of her having won a prestigious Rappaport Fellowship. The panelists were accompanied by 2L Wyatt Spangler (featured), an NLG chapter member who contributed vitally to the program, and Assistant Dean of Public Interest John Quinn, who participated also as a panelist.

'Repay evil with blessing,' Apostle Peter writes

North Scituate Baptist Church, R.I.
Swampyank at English Wikipedia
via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 3.0

With Election Day tomorrow, this might be an opportune moment for a message of peace and non-retribution.

Last week I had the privilege of sharing the word of 1 Peter 3:8-9 at the nearby Rhode Island church of a dear friend and pastor while he was away from the pulpit. (Oct. 27, below.)

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

The pastor had preached the preceding week on the flaws of human criminal justice. So I started by shifting the focus to civil justice and the fundamental question, as framed by my late friend and mentor Professor Marshall S. Shapo, A injures B and could have avoided it; what should society do? 

Professor Shapo was well schooled in the Old Testament and knew the teaching of Exodus, an eye for an eye. The New Testament put another spin on the problem and confronts the contemporary Christian litigator with a vexing challenge. 1 Peter 3:8, et seq., is only a piece of the solution, and I don't purport to have it all worked out. Nevertheless, and at risk of some hypocrisy, I found a starting point in the verses.

I thank the pastoral and worship teams and congregation of North Scituate Baptist Church, Rhode Island, for their kindness, hospitality, and indulgence of my ramblings, which I hope were motivated by the Spirit. (Full service.)

A reminder that The Savory Tort is a personal blog. What I write here is not representative of my employer nor communicated in my public capacity, even if some content also serves the professional interests of my teaching, research, and public service.

New book spotlights freedom of press in film

My friend and colleague Helen J. Knowles-Gardner, formerly a political science professor and now research director at the Institute for Free Speech, along with co-author Professor Emeritus Bruce E. Altschuler and Professor Brandon T. Metroka, has published a gratifyingly compelling new book, Filming the First: Cinematic Portrayals of Freedom of the Press (Lexington Books 2025).

The engaging cover art was created by illustrator Doug Does Drawings (X, Etsy, Instagram, YouTube).

Here is the publisher's description of the book:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging freedom of the press. But, as the printed press has been transformed into mass media with Americans now more likely to get their political information from television or social media than from print, confidence in this important, mediating institution has fallen dramatically. Movies, in their role as cultural artifacts, have long reflected and influenced those public attitudes, inventing such iconic phrases as “follow the money” from All the President’s Men and “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore” from Network. Filming the First: Cinematic Portrayals of Freedom of the Press analyzes eighteen films that span from Citizen Kane to Spotlight showing changes in how the press have been portrayed over time, which voices receive the most attention and why, the relationship between the press’s “Fourth Estate” role and the imperatives of capitalism, and how, despite the First Amendment’s seemingly absolute language, the government has sometimes been able to limit what the public can read or view.

I was privileged to review an advance copy of the book and am quoted aptly on the back cover: 

Filming the First is a deeply thought-provoking exploration of America's cinematic engagement with "the press." Through the revealing social implications of the big screen, Filming the First interrogates press freedom from yellow-journalism sensationalism to Watergate and Vietnam heroics, to the existential threat of misinformation. Organizing eighteen films into ten thematic chapters, Filming the First embraces both classics and the avant-garde and treats readers to perspectives on mass media from the reverent paean to the ruthless critique. Knowles-Gardner, Altschuler, and Metroka locate their diverse film selections each in its social, cultural, and legal context. Upon each exposition, the writers relate key takeaways to the perils and uncertainties that surround the business of media in our polarized present day. Filming the First is a thrill ride for film buffs, free speech aficionados, and anyone willing to engage with the struggle to define media's place in modern democracy.

If I ever again have the freedom to teach an indulgent topical seminar, this book is at the top of my list.

Here is the table of contents.

Chapter 1. Censorship in a Time of War: Good Morning, Vietnam
Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Chapter 2. A Media Mogul Battles Against His Fictional Doppelganger: Citizen Kane and RKO 281
Bruce E. Altschuler

Chapter 3. Heroic Newspaper Reporters, Editors, and Publishers Battle the President – All the President’s Men and The Post
Bruce E. Altschuler

Chapter 4. Technology Transforms the Press into the Media: Network and The Social Network
Bruce E. Altschuler

Chapter 5. “How Can We Possibly Approve and Check the Story…?”: Good Night, and Good Luck and The China Syndrome
Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Chapter 6. Testing the Limits of Freedom: Denial and Deliberate Intent
Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Chapter 7. Responsibility Matters: Shattered Glass
Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Chapter 8. Creating Protagonists, Competing Interests, and Uncertain Legal Standards: The People vs. Larry Flynt and Citizenfour
Brandon T. Metroka

Chapter 9. A Tale of One Press Clause and Two Journalisms: Spotlight and Out in the Night
Brandon T. Metroka

Chapter 10. Mainstream Press Negligence and its Effects: The Normal Heart and Tongues Untied
Brandon T. Metroka

 

Hospital's radiology contractor must answer negligence claim over patient death, per third-party doctrine

Saint Vincent Hospital, Worcester, Mass.
Terageorge~commonswiki via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0

A hospital's radiology contractor may be on the hook for failure to provide emergency medical treatment to a patient who died, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled last week.

The decision offers a solid analysis of third-party beneficiary doctrine in tort law. Under the doctrine, a duty in common law tort can arise from a contract that benefits a third party. So if B and C contract for the protection of A, an injured A may sue C for for its failure under the contract, even though C had no contract with A and would not otherwise have owed any common law duty to A.

In the instant case, Saint Vincent Hospital (SVH) in Worcester, Massachusetts, had contracted with Saint Vincent Radiological Associates, Inc., (SVRA) for radiology services for SVH patients. The plaintiff-decedent was an SVH patient suffering from an acute gallbladder infection requiring an emergency procedure. SVH did not have staff to do the procedure and transferred the patient to another hospital. The patient died before the procedure could be completed. 

The plaintiff-representative discovered later that an SRVA physician on call for SVH was able to do the procedure. The representative sued SVH and SVRA. The representative settled with SVH, but the representative's negligence claim against SVRA was dismissed for want of duty.

The trial court erred, the Appeals Court decided. Ordinarily, an SVRA doctor might have owed no duty to an SVH patient, any more than any doctor who was a stranger to the patient. However, SVRA had contracted with SVH for the benefit of third parties, namely, patients, such as the decedent. The plaintiff therefore could pursue a negligence claim against SVRA, the Appeals Court agreed, remanding and reinstating the claim.

There remains a question of fact in the case, which might have confused the issue in the trial court, over whether the SVH-SVRA contract provided for SVRA doctors to do emergency procedures, if needed, more than mere radiology consultations. If the scope of the contract was so limited, then there is no basis in the contract for the duty to perform the procedure that could have saved the patient's life. The parties had settled contract claims in the case below, so the courts never had occasion to opine on the scope of the contract.

Another question that will have to be resolved on remand, if the case is tried, is whether the defendant was negligent, that is, breached the standard of care. Even breach of contractual obligation, if that were the case, is not negligence per se under the third-party beneficiary doctrine.

In working out its conclusion, the Appeals Court noted an important additional feature of the doctrine, which is that a contract can only support a duty familiar to common law, assuming there were a social-contractual link between A and C. If a contract imposes some exotic obligation, then the only remedy for breach arises between the contracting parties, B and C, in contract law. Here, though, this requirement is not an impediment. C is a doctor, and A is a patient. The duty relationship is easily recognizable once the contract bridges the social gap.

The case is Brown v. Saint Vincent Radiological Associates, Inc., No. 23-P-771 (Oct. 24, 2024). Justice Gregory I. Massing wrote the opinion of the unanimous panel, which also comprised Justices Shin and D'Angelo.

Hospitals may track patients online and sell their data without violating state wiretap law, high court rules

Mike MacKenzie (via Flickr) CC BY 2.0

State wiretap law does not prevent hospitals from tracking patients on the web and selling their data, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week.

The plaintiff is a patient at two hospitals in the Beth Israel Lahey Health network. As the court explained the facts, the plaintiff "reviewed information available to the public on the hospitals' websites regarding doctors (including their credentials and backgrounds) and medical symptoms, conditions, and procedures." Without her consent, the hospitals shared the plaintiff's browsing data with third parties to generate revenue from targeted advertising.

The plaintiff sued under state wiretap law and got some traction in the lower courts, where the theory has bubbled up in other cases, too. The high court ended the trend, though, ruling that the state wiretap law, which threatens criminal penalties such as imprisonment, while reaching interpersonal communications such as telephone calls and email and text exchanges, was not intended to reach persons' interactions with websites.

The 47-page majority opinion by Justice Scott L. Kafker, drew a vigorous and almost as lengthy dissent from Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt, who accused the hospitals of lying to patients in their pledges of confidentiality and argued that the alleged misconduct falls squarely within legislative intent in prohibiting the interception of electronic communication.

I won't belabor the back and forth, as ample commentary already has been published about the case (e.g., JD Supra, Commonwealth Beacon, Bloomberg, National Law Review, Law360 (subscription), Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (subscription)), and there is plenty more to come. Rather, I will comment only that the decision reflects the sorry state of privacy law in the United States.

The majority and dissent both make defensible arguments. I come down with the dissent on the technical merits of what the wiretap law was designed to prevent, i.e. "the spirit of the law," regardless of whether the legislature could have foreseen web surveillance. At the same time, the majority is right that the legislature likely would not have wanted to imprison every actor engaging in the kind of web surveillance that has become pervasive in our online society.

The missing link between the two positions is the meaningful data protection law that the United States still doesn't have, and which Americans want and expect, while almost three decades have passed since the European Union Data Protection Directive. The later General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has been in force for six years.

Wiretap law was once the stuff of political intrigue, à la Watergate. The Massachusetts statute characteristically dates to the 1960s. Just as the advent of the internet made media law again hotly relevant to society, so wiretap law found new life in the electronic era. Courts had little difficulty transposing the law of wired telephone surveillance to wireless cell phones and electronic communication media such as email and texts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court got in on the action.

That's why I think Wendlandt has the better argument on the technical merits, by the way. The majority's distinction of interaction with a person or a website, when there are persons receiving surveillance data from the website, seems meaninglessly formalistic.

With electronic communication burgeoning in the internet era and electronic interception easier to accomplish without the need for specialized hardware, wiretap laws have been repurposed to do more work than they were designed for, becoming a key tool in the personal privacy arsenal.

The problem in tort law, to oversimplify modestly, always has been what Professor Daniel Solove termed "the secrecy paradigm." The common law of privacy torts, which also emerged largely in the 1960s, was not designed to handle the nuances of an online world. Rather, tort law, like the Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure, focused on secrets kept. A person might resort to the law to protect an intimate secret shared with a spouse. But the person who discloses financial information to a bank has forfeit legal privacy. 

Intimate space is not the theory of privacy that animates data protection in Europe and most of the rest of the world. In the theory abroad, the human right of privacy flows forward with personal data as they are handed off from person to person and corporation to corporation. In the United States, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides a modicum of privacy protection in this vein, but the circumstances in which it pertains are extremely narrow—web activity is not protected health information, and a web host is not a healthcare provider—and it authorizes no private right of action for violation.

In the absence of a legal model of downstream privacy preservation in the United States—notwithstanding a perplexing emerging plethora of competing state laws, if usually limited to commercial contexts; Massachusetts has been working on joining the pack, but has not yet—wiretap law has been unexpectedly instrumental to protect personal privacy in a narrow class of cases, because wiretap law focuses on the misconduct of clandestine surveillance rather than on the purportedly private nature of the intercepted content.

To be fair to the Massachusetts majority, though, such use of anachronistic wiretap law takes us down a road of ever more speculative application as the electronic avatar increasingly becomes an embodiment of personal identity. Electronic tools such as Google Analytics watch our every word. And we don't necessarily want to stop that wholesale. The other day, I watched a dated TV movie that Amazon thought I would like, and it was right. Time travel, Ireland, and Jane Seymour? Drop everything.

Notwithstanding which side in the instant case has the better argument in statutory interpretation, the legal response to the problem presented, that is, surveillance of web usage for the relatively innocuous if mercantile purpose of advertising, would arise better from business regulation than from common law or statutory torts.

Alas, if I had the magic potion that would make our broken Congress favor consumer protection over corporate profits, I would be running for President.

The case is Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, No. SJC-13542 (Mass. Oct. 24, 2024).

Transparency never goes out of style

This autumn, I am privileged to serve as a new member of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee, a U.S. federal entity constituted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and administered by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

If that alphabet soup has your head spinning, then you have some sense of what it's been like for me to get up to speed in this role. That said, I'm thrilled to have the opportunity and humbled by the expertise of the committee members and OGIS staff with whom I'm serving.

I'll have more to say in time, as we have accomplishments to report. Meanwhile, though, a bit of parody art. At a meeting yesterday of the Implementation Subcommittee, ace OGIS compliance officer and former journalist Kirsten B. Mitchell related an anecdote.

A youthful person had wondered aloud that Fresca is quite old, perhaps dating to the 1980s! And Mitchell said she felt compelled to note that it is even older. In fact, the niche-beloved Coca-Cola Co. soft drink dates to the same year the FOIA was signed into law: 1966. That modest revelation prompted me to generate the above art, based on a contemporary Fresca ad that capitalizes on the drink's age ("Delicious Never Goes Out of Style"). (Above art by RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 with no claim to underlying work of Coca-Cola Co.)

The inaugural public meeting of the 2024-2026 FOIA Advisory Committee, at NARA in September, is posted on YouTube.

Niagara conference on workplace mobbing examines failure of academic freedom to prevent abuse

NCWM participants at Niagara University in July
© used with permission

With colleagues from around the world, I participated, as chair of the scientific committee, in the inaugural Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing (NCWM) on July 22-24, 2024, at Niagara University in New York (Savory Tort, Feb. 27, 2024).

Videos from the conference are now posted on a new NCWM YouTube channel and NCWM 2024 playlist.

Here is my introduction to the program, moderating the opening session.

For reasons investigated in the literature, academic workplaces are especially prone to mobbing. Here is my own presentation on academic freedom relative to workplace mobbing.

Here is another contribution to the academic freedom panel from my friend and colleague, Prof. Robert Ashford, Syracuse Law (pictured).

And here is the panel Q&A with Prof. Frances Widdowson (Woke Academy), Prof. Ashford, and me.

I will feature more programs from the conference in subsequent posts.

Enríquez disputes impact of marijuana offenses on federal sentencing since legalization in Missouri

The extraordinary scientist-lawyer Paul Enríquez argued an intriguing problem on the effect of legalization on federal sentencing in the Eighth Circuit Friday.

I wrote in 2021 about Rewriting Nature (Cambridge U. Press 2021), the remarkable book by Enríquez, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D. (LinkedIn, SSRN), on the law and science of genome editing. On Friday, Enríquez showed that he has the chops in the courtroom, too. Court Listener has the oral argument.

Enríquez's brief states the straightforward problem:

Mr. Brandon Phillips pleaded guilty to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment and three years of supervised release based on his criminal history. An amendment to the Missouri Constitution, which was in effect at the time of sentencing, legalized the use of limited amounts of marijuana and mandated the retroactive expungement of most prior marijuana-related convictions in Missouri. The district court failed to consider the effects of the Missouri Constitution on Mr. Phillips's case.

Missourian approved legalization 53%-47%.
Wikipedia CC BY-SA 4.0

As Enríquez told the court, Phillips would have fared much better in sentencing on the firearm violation, perhaps a third as many years, in prison, had he been credited with expungement pursuant to the Missouri constitution as amended in 2022. Ripe for someone to grab for moot court, the case also presents a procedural dispute over preservation of objection.

To my mind, Enríquez has the better argument on the merits and made the better argument in the courtroom, forensically. (I don't say that because he's a friend, colleague, and long-ago student, but I do mention that he's a former student in the hope that some of his shine will rub off.) To my mind, this seems the sort of case where the just outcome is obvious, even if legal formalism points the other way. Doing the right thing upon such a dichotomy is why we pay judges the big bucks and why we won't, I hope, commit justice to AI anytime soon.

What the court will do, though, remains to be seen. Getting hung up on formalism is a signature move for the federal bench. To my estimation, the judges' questions point to a split with the deciding third vote as yet inscrutable.

The case is United States v. Phillips, No. 23-2678 (8th Cir. oral argument Sept. 27, 2024) (Justia). Enríquez practices with Convington.