John Elway dealership sued
The suit, which also names the famed former Denver Broncos quarterback and two partners, also alleged that Timothy Sandquist, an 11-year employee at Elway’s dealership, was paid less than his white peers and was repeatedly passed over for promotions and raises, according to the lawsuit.
A lawyer for the dealership, James McDonald, denied the lawsuit’s allegations and said the complaint contains many factual errors. He declined to comment further.
According to the complaint, the dealership’s general manager, Darrell Sperber, created a hostile work environment for minority employees through his “rampant harassment and use of racial slurs.”
The lawsuit also alleged that Sperber, hired as general manager in 2007, retaliated against employees who reported discrimination or harassment.
Janette Wipper, an attorney for Sandquist, said co-owners Elway, Mitchell Pierce and Jerry Williams were notified of these complaints after an outside company conducted a general employee survey.
Sandquist, an African American who started as a sales representative in 2000, became a sales manager in 2008. He resigned last year and subsequently filed a complaint with the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
It seems John Elway has somehow learned of the existence of a little-known punk band that shares his name, and the Hall of Fame quarterback isn’t happy. His lawyer has sent the band a letter requesting they change their name. Elway guitarist/vocalist Tim Browne (thank goodness there’s an “e” on the end of that, otherwise he might be hearing from a famous Raiders receiver) offered this statement to the guys at Punknews.org:
At the request of our buddies at Punknews, and in response to the inquiries we’ve received in the past few days, we would like to say a few things about this situation with John Elway that has arisen.
Last Thursday we got an email from a lawyer who represents Mr. Elway in his various legal and business excursions. The letter basically said that John had become aware of our little punk rock band and, though we make no reference to him in our songs or artwork, he saw fit to dispatch his legal team to demand that we (again) change our band name. It is important to note that this letter is not a cease and desist and does not imply that we are being sued, it reads more like a flexing maneuver mired in legalese. Of course, any Coloradoan worth their salt might point out the absurdity of Mr. Elway’s insistence on legally strongarming a virtually unknown punk band rather than focusing his attention on mending the badly broken Denver Broncos, but that’s a whole different issue.
We have no intention of changing the name again. We love the name, regardless of what connotations are inferred by the listener. Surely, if the Dead Kennedys could become one of punk’s most popular bands without incurring litigation, Elway can keep their moniker and continue making so-so music for our dozens of fans to enjoy.
Elway may be able to claim that the band is violating trademark laws with that name, but Punknews.org staff writer John Gentile explains that “the band Elway might have a good argument that there is no confusion, mostly because there is likely little evidence of actual confusion, the goods produced by John Elway and the band Elway are entirely different, and the marketing channels of the two parties probably do not overlap.”
Now that this news has gone public, I doubt Elway (the human being) continues to pester Elway (the band), mainly because it just looks petty. The band isn’t raking in millions while using his name, so why bother? All he’ll do by pushing this is cost the band thousands of dollars in legal costs or force them to change a harmless name and go back to the drawing board.
Let’s face it. The whole scene after the game was just plain weird. Gamblers were celebrating not because the team they lived and died with actually won, but because their kids were going to get a new pair of shoes.
Do we want that in Atlantic City? The New Jersey Legislature has been trying for years to allow the voters to decide if sports gambling should be legalized in Atlantic City. It would generate much needed revenue for the casinos, not to mention the state. And it is all the more timely given that Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this morning. For the third time.
The bill has never gotten far. The Senate says it has no chance until the federal government changes its law that allows sports gambling in only four states – Nevada, Oregon, Delaware and Montana. Only Nevada has sports gambling. But Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, continues to press the issue.
The pros: People already bet on sports. They just do it underground. Which means New Jersey doesn’t get the tax revenue from what is surely a multi-million dollar economy. And Atlantic City casinos could use the business.
The cons: Gambling, when done without moderation, is a surefire way to lose everything. Sports gambling is no different. And New Jersey’s reputation when it comes to organized crime isn’t very good. And what would happen if someone got to a key player for the New Jersey Nets? Or the New York Giants? Or the Seton Hall Pirates? Or rogue NBA referee Tim Donaghy?
Come to think of it, whatever happened to Donaghy? And why didn’t the NBA give a refund to every fan of the Phoenix Suns who thought they were watching the real deal, but instead where watching the big fix and saw their team lose out on a championship? Where were the enterprising lawyers filing a lawsuit on behalf of the entire class? Where was the outrage?
With the federal law in place, the question is moot, but it’s kind of fun to argue. Is the newfound revenue from sports gambling worth the price?
No comments:
Post a Comment