City spokesman Matt Allen declined to comment, telling The Detroit News the city does not normally comment on litigation or personnel issues.

McBride, who joined the planning department in 2000, says problems started a year ago when the co-worker, who isn't identified in the lawsuit, transferred into her department.

"This employee not only wore a strong scent, but also plugged in a scented room deodorizer," the lawsuit states. "Ms. McBride was overcome by the smell almost instantly, causing her to go home sick."

The co-worker later agreed to stop using the room deodorizer, but kept using perfume, the lawsuit states.

Attorneys representing the shareholders of Tyco International Ltd. said Friday PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has agreed to pay $225 million to settle a class action lawsuit.

Tyco (nyse: TYC - news - people ) shareholders pursuing the lawsuit had claimed that as Tyco's independent auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers failed to uncover fraud in an accounting scandal at the conglomerate. Tyco's chief executive and chief financial officer were convicted in the scandal.

In May, Tyco agreed to pay nearly $3 billion to shareholders in association with the case. Investors who purchased or acquired Tyco securities from December 13, 1999 to June 7, 2002 are covered by the settlement. Calls to PricewaterhouseCoopers were not immediately returned. Shares of Tyco International rose 7 cents to close at $53.17.

Sainz is scheduled to be sentenced Aug. 16 in Superior Court, and will likely face 15 years to life in prison.

While it was unclear how the head trauma occurred, the baby also suffered from bleeding from the eyes, which is common when a baby is shaken vigorously, said Deputy District Attorney Stephen Foley.

"Whether the baby was hit against a wall, or just shook, we don't know," he said.

Sainz's baby was brought to an area hospital on Dec. 29 in a "non-responsive, labored breathing state," according to a police statement, and died at another hospital on Jan. 1.

A man accused of a dismemberment killing has lost a unique legal challenge of Manitoba’s jury system in which he claimed the right to be tried by a jury composed mostly of natives like himself.

Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Marc Monnin handed down a decision Wednesday, ruling Sydney Teerhuis’ rights are not being violated by the current system.

Teerhuis, 35, argued last fall the jury selection process doesn’t allow for a true representation of the public to hear a criminal case and is a violation of his charter rights.

Teerhuis is accused of dismembering, beheading and castrating Robin Greene, 38, inside a Winnipeg hotel in the summer of 2003. Police were led to the body after a man walked into the Public Safety Building and allegedly confessed.

Investigators initially believed they were responding to a prank call and were stunned to find the victim inside the bathtub of a hotel suite on July 2, 2003 — cut into eight pieces.

Police have been unable to locate some internal organs  — including the heart and intestines — and their disposition remains a disturbing mystery.

Police also recovered inside the suite a necklace that had been stolen one day earlier from the set of the Hollywood movie, Shall We Dance?, starring Jennifer Lopez, Susan Sarandon and Richard Gere.

The movie was being filmed in Winnipeg. The $4,000 necklace belonged to Sarandon but played no role in the killing in terms of motive, according to police.

The celebrity link to the gruesome case sparked interest in the United States from gossip magazines, tabloid newspapers and entertainment talk shows.

Greene and his alleged killer weren’t known to each other, but apparently met just prior to the homicide and agreed to return to the hotel for consensual sex.

One of Teerhuis’ main arguments about the jury process was that aboriginals are unfairly barred from jury duty because of a rule that states jurors can’t have criminal records.

Teerhuis cited statistics that show 61 per cent of people in prison are native.

Defence lawyer Greg Brodsky claimed justice officials have created a system where the only people selected for jury duty are “the elderly and the unemployed.”

Jury co-ordinator Gail Hildebrand told court that about 1,600 jury notices were sent out in anticipation of the Teerhuis trial, which was set to begin last September.

She said the list of names was randomly generated through provincial health records and she didn’t know how many people on it were native.

Crown attorney Deborah Carlson said there is no evidence anything improper occurred when dismissing prospective jurors.

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles is the rightful owner of the buildings and other property of a conservative La Crescenta congregation that broke away from the diocese last year, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday.

The decision by Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr. against St. Luke's of the Mountains came more than a week after an appeals court panel in Orange County ruled in favor of the six-county Los Angeles Diocese in a similar property dispute with three other parishes.

The judge said Tuesday that he could not ignore the higher court's extensive June 25 ruling on comparable issues, but said he expected an appeal in the St. Luke's dispute as well.

"This case is far from over, but it's over in this court," he said.

In February 2006, a majority of St. Luke's congregants voted to pull out of the diocese and the 2.3-million-member Episcopal Church because of differences over biblical authority and interpretation, including the Episcopal Church's 2003 decision to consecrate an openly gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire.

The other dissident congregations — St. James Church in Newport Beach, All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. David's Church in North Hollywood — broke away in August 2004 over largely the same issues. Each has placed itself under the authority of a conservative Anglican bishop in Uganda.

The diocese sued, arguing that the congregations held their buildings and other property in trust for the diocese and the Episcopal Church as a whole. An Orange County trial judge, in separate decisions, had ruled in favor of the three parishes.

But a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana overturned those opinions last week.

In Tuesday's hearing, Wiley said that before the appellate court's detailed, 77-page ruling, he had been leaning toward a decision for St. Luke's. But after the appellate ruling, he was obliged to defer to the higher court and its analysis of church property precedents in California and elsewhere, he said.

Outside the courtroom, officials and attorneys for St. Luke's said they were disappointed by the judge's decision, but not surprised.

"This doesn't change our decision to withdraw from the diocese and the Episcopal Church, and to uphold the decisions of the wider Anglican Communion," said the Rev. Ronald W. Jackson, the church's rector. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the 77-million-member worldwide Anglican Communion.

Jackson said he continued to believe that the St. Luke's property was owned by the congregation itself, not the diocese.

"We're a vibrant, growing congregation and we're going to continue the ministry that Christ has called us to," he said.

Eric Sohlgren, lead attorney for St. Luke's and the other dissident local parishes, said St. Luke's officials were expected to quickly decide whether to appeal. Sohlgren repeated his view that the appellate ruling was contrary to three decades of legal precedent in California and that it probably would be overturned.

But the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Los Angeles Diocese, said he was happy with Tuesday's decision and eager to reconcile with St. Luke's parishioners and leaders, many of whom he has known for years.

"We want to sit down with them, to understand their pain, have them understand ours and come back together," Bruno said.

The Southern California parishes are among about four dozen congregations that have seceded from the Episcopal Church since the consecration of the gay bishop in 2003. Many of those are in similar legal struggles over church property.

A Los Angeles jury in 2001 had rejected Davis' claims, but the trial judge, Robert C. Hubbell, threw out the verdict and ordered a new trial after several jurors accused two members of the panel of misconduct. An appellate court in 2005 restored the jury verdict, saying conflicting accounts of what happened in the jury room did not merit a new trial. Restricting its review to a narrow legal issue - whether the appellate court was correct in reviewing the competing juror accounts in the absence of a rationale being provided by Hubbell for his own ruling - the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision.

"We are pleased this lengthy litigation is finally over," said NFL executive vice president Joe Browne.

Jeff Birren, the Raiders' general counsel, said, "The Supreme Court ruled that because the judge failed to insert a couple of extra words of explanation, the Raiders should be denied a new trial. The Supreme Court's ruling is incomprehensible."

Davis had claimed more than $1 billion worth of damages from the NFL, but jurors didn't believe his account that the league forced his decision to move back to Oakland by imposing onerous terms before it would help build a new Hollywood Park stadium. The jury sided with the NFL, which argued Davis took the deal in Oakland because he thought it would turn out best for the team.

After the verdict was reached, Davis personally interviewed jurors and found some who were willing to sign statements saying a member of the panel was prejudiced against the Raiders. That juror, Joseph Abiog, maintained he had no bias, saying he only had joked that "I hate the Raiders" because he once lost a bet on the team in Las Vegas.

The Oakland contract has been disastrous both for the Raiders and taxpayers in the city and in Alameda County, as Raiders fans refused to buy all the pricey personal seat licenses and club seats that the deal's proponents had projected. The Raiders have fallen to among the lowest revenue-producing teams in the league, while the city and county have paid $236 million to cover the deal costs to date, a number that will increase until bonds used to rebuild McAfee Coliseum are retired in 2025.