How about a few Christmas lawsuits to get you in the holiday spirit?!

By Quimbee.com|News and Analysis|2 Comments

So you’re stuffed full of turkey and/or other delicious home fixin’s you wouldn’t attempt to stomach any other time of year. You’ve also already decided to either brave the Black Friday atmosphere and attempt some shopping or stand steadfastly against the rampant display of capitalism and lock yourself in for the day. What does all this mean? It’s Christmas season, folks!!!

Excuse the exclamation points if you’re not even half as excited about this time of year as I am. Or if you, like every retail chain out there, decided tinseling just after Halloween was a good idea–it’s wasn’t, that’s WAY too early. At any rate, I’m sure most of you can agree…it’s the most wonderful time of the year! How about some funny, fun, interesting, or even intriguing stories of Christmas litigation or legal arguments surrounding Christmas to kick off the season properly?

Protesting Christmas

Julie Wells, a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, decided the Denver, Colorado downtown Christmas display just didn’t jive with her philosophy about the ho-ho-holiday (sorry for that, I can’t seem to help myself). She decided to make her message known by placing sandwich boards in the midst of the display. She wanted people to know that “the Christ child is a religious myth”  and “there are no gods.” Funny that she indicated the validity of the “Christ child” by capitalizing his name! Must have been an accident. Anyway, when the sign was removed she sued. She was turned away by both the federal district court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth Circuit held that Wells’s right of free speech allowed her to carry her sign, but did not require that she be allowed to place a sign in the midst of the display. In response to Wells’s concerns about her safety, the court provided that the right to free speech did not require that it provide body guards for anyone wanting to exercise their rights.

In case you’re not quite prepared for a Christmas break from reading case law, here’s the Tenth Circuit’s decision: Wells v. City and County of Denver

Citizen vs. Santa Claus

Mark Weist sued Santa Claus. That’s right, Santa Claus. Well, a Santa Claus parade in Toronto, but the assault feels personal, doesn’t it? The story is, Weist wants $500,000 for “great pain, suffering, profound shock and permanent loss of vision.” How did this happen? Turns out one of the parade volunteers throwing out candy hit Weist in the face with a miniature candy bar. Weist’s attorney has been quoted as saying that the sad thing for everyone is that Weist did not want this to happen to him.

Away in a manger…Santa Claus was born?

In Warwick, New York, a public elementary school faced canceling a fundraiser because a parent complained that it was “too religious.” The fundraiser was named “Breakfast with Santa.” That’s right, Santa is now officially a religious figure, guys! The parent specifically complained that Santa represents a Christian holiday and, therefore, the fundraiser should not be promoted by the school because it is too religious. She also complained that the fundraiser is discriminatory of other’s religions and, therefore, “detestable.” The school was advised by counsel to change the fundraiser in order to avoid litigation. The school changed the name to “Winter Wonderland Breakfast” and incorporated Frosty the Snowman as another dominant figure at the breakfast. The complaining parent was not satisfied with the changes.

I double-dog dare you!

Zack Ward played everyone’s favorite bully in A Christmas Story, Scut Farkus! It also turns out that Ward retained any merchandising rights to this character and now claims that Warner Brothers didn’t respect that pesky little section of the contract. On August 18, 2001, Ward sued Warner Brothers in federal court, claiming that the company has been using his likeness in a Farkus figurine, but paying no share of the profits to Ward. Ward also sued National Entertainment Collectibles Association for the use of his likeness in board games based on the movie. In Ward’s complaint, we can see that Warner Brothers’s initial response to Ward’s claim is that, while the clothing may be similar, the face of the figurine is different than Ward’s face. This suit is obviously still making it’s way through the system, but it’ll be interesting to see if they maintain that line of defense or if they try something with a little more substance (compare the figurine to the child actor and you’ll likely be surprised as I am that they even attempted that argument).