Long Drivers responds to Lawless lawsuit

Long Drivers of America, the organization that owns and conducts the World Long Drive Championship, finally has responded to Lana Lawless and her discrimination lawsuit.

??On Oct. 12, Lawless filed suit against the LDA, as well as the LPGA. Lawless, a transgender woman and the 2008 world champion in the LDA’s female division, wants to compete in LDA events (beginning in 2009, the LDA abolished all women’s competition) and in LPGA tournaments.

??On Dec. 1, the LPGA officially changed its female-at-birth policy to allow transgender women such as Lawless to compete. However, the 57-year-old Lawless still has to gain entry into any tournament under existing qualification standards.

??On Dec. 21, Golfweek obtained a copy of a three-sentence LDA press release, which stated that the LDA would follow the new LPGA policy in any future long-drive events involving women. However, the LDA reiterated that it has no plans to schedule or conduct any competition for women in the near future.

The LDA maintains there is insufficient interest among female competitors and potential sponsors.

Here is the LDA statement, released by LDA attorney Thomas L. Kemp of Elkton, MD.:

“Long Drivers of America has no plans to conduct any women’s long drive events in the future and has not conducted an event for women since the 2008 RE/MAX World Long Drive Championship. Should sponsorship interest change and participation increase in women’s long drive and the LDA does conduct a women’s event in the future, it will follow the LPGA’s rule change and permit participation of transgendered women. Women of any age may compete in the open division and women who meet the age requirements may compete in the various senior men’s events.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured site: So, Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?.

View the original article here

North Myrtle Beach's hotel lawsuit cut totals $200,000

CHARLESTON -- Hotel booking websites recently agreed to pay $900,000 to three S.C. municipal governments, including North Myrtle Beach, to settle a lawsuit in which the municipalities sought additional tax money from them.

Ronnie Bonds, an attorney representing the consolidated cases for Charleston, Mount Pleasant and North Myrtle Beach, said the agreement means about $193,000 for North Myrtle Beach, $657,000 for Charleston and $50,000 for Mount Pleasant. Bonds said the settlement, which comes in hundreds of thousands of dollars above what the municipalities claimed to have lost in tax revenue, accounts for two future years.

The dispute lies in how much money Internet brokers, such as hotels.com, Hotwire, Priceline and Expedia, should pay in taxes to the places where their customers stay. Many municipalities collect a certain percentage of the gross proceeds from every hotel room night sold.

Online booking companies pay based on the amount they agree to forward to the hotel, not the total they charge customers, which can include service fees and taxes.

Charleston began imposing a 2 percent hotel tax in 1996 to offset expenses incurred "as a direct result of the demands placed on the City by the tourism industry," its lawsuit said.

It goes on to allege that the online companies failed to pay that tax.

The lawsuit also said the companies charged marked-up room rates but paid taxes only on the lower prices they negotiated with hotels, which in turn pay the city.

Mount Pleasant's lawsuit, with a 1 percent tax rate at stake, made the same argument.

In each case, the local ordinances specifically say taxes apply to the gross rate paid for the rooms.

In South Carolina the tax money collected goes toward projects directly related to supporting the tourism industry.

The municipalities went through mediation with the online companies in federal court.

"It's a compromise," Bonds said. "Given the costs of going forward to try the case and the risk involved in a trial, I'd say the city is satisfied."

He pointed out that the money paid only settles the claim and that the websites deny owing money.

Attorneys for the sites could not be reached for comment Friday.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here