Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.Most all race discrimination cases are thrown out on summary judgment Rabbi. You are a hack that spouts what you hear at the barber shop, none of it is true but it matches your low information ideology.
These cases are in Federal court and NO lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a contingency case. How many of these plaintiffs have money to pay an attorney to take their case at a $300 a hour fee and a $10,000 retainer up front?
And the success rate for these cases is about 15-20% so how many lawyers are going to front $15,000-$20,000 of THEIR MONEY to take depositions, pay court reporters, pay transcript costs, pay filing fees, pay an investigator to take statements before the case is litigated and pay his staff before the case even makes it to the summary judgment hearing?
Most of the nuisance cases, and there are many, are pro se and are thrown out of court almost immediately with little or no costs of defense other than what they have already done pre litigation as most all businesses keep a record of employee hiring and firing without this law.
The "we will offer the cost of the defense" is not a real issue in these cases as Orrin Hatch finally admitted as he voted against it the first time in '96 and for it now.
Now go back to what you know best Rabbi because this ain't it. I am sure you are good at what you do but this is not it. I have worked on both sides of these cases for 34 years, never on the same case of course and 80%+ for the defense of them, and know how this works in the Federal courts. No lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a good one and there are always the very, very few where you get some whore like Gloria Alred where she steps in for publicity only.
You have no clue and are winging it on sound bite spin.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.
As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record
Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.
Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.
OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.
As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record
Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.
Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.
Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.
Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.
Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.
OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.
As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record
Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.
Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.
Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.
Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.
Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.
Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.
Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.
Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.
Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.
It would be easier to fix the ACA site.
You know what you're asking is nonsense.
OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.
As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record
Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.
Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.
Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.
Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.
Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.
Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.
Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.
Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.
It would be easier to fix the ACA site.
You know what you're asking is nonsense.
Well, it depends on "frivolous." And 'all". Of course a lot of that stuff never makes the news media so there is really no telling. But anyone who thinks that doesnt happen is an idiot. Then again, look who we're dealing with.
It would be easier to fix the ACA site.
You know what you're asking is nonsense.
Well, it depends on "frivolous." And 'all". Of course a lot of that stuff never makes the news media so there is really no telling. But anyone who thinks that doesnt happen is an idiot. Then again, look who we're dealing with.
No one says it never happens.
You want to quit prosecuting all crimes because a few innocent folks get convicted.
Well, it depends on "frivolous." And 'all". Of course a lot of that stuff never makes the news media so there is really no telling. But anyone who thinks that doesnt happen is an idiot. Then again, look who we're dealing with.
No one says it never happens.
You want to quit prosecuting all crimes because a few innocent folks get convicted.
OK, so you admit that such suits happen. But somehow the threat of such suits will not change anyone's behavior? Really? Have you thought this out very well?
No one says it never happens.
You want to quit prosecuting all crimes because a few innocent folks get convicted.
OK, so you admit that such suits happen. But somehow the threat of such suits will not change anyone's behavior? Really? Have you thought this out very well?
Never said at any time it never happened.
The Constitution was not written with what the legal behavior of people would be.
The Constitution was written to make sure the behavior of GOVERNMENT was in check and limiting it, NOT the individual rights of the PEOPLE.
You think you know everything about everything.
Everybody is smarter than you and me and everyone else about something.
You are not a master of all trades so quit claiming to be.
You are very susceptible to rumor and innuendo that matches your ideology.
That is not what will happen as the burden of proof in ALL civil litigation is on the plaintiff to prove their case and in this statute that burden is they have to prove they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
That is the first stage and if they offer no evidence of that before trial in the rules of civil discovery the Judge DISMISSES the case on a Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed by the defense in all civil litigation. And if it passes past that and goes to trial the jury first has to find that there is evidence of firing because of sexual orientation ONLY and rules on that liability stage.
The next stage would be the damages and the plaintiff has to prove damages. If they were fired and found a job the next week what are their damages? Little to nothing?
You might as well give up now Rabbi because on my worst day with one hand tied behind my back I can beat you easily. You come with rank hear say rhetoric only.
OK, so you admit that such suits happen. But somehow the threat of such suits will not change anyone's behavior? Really? Have you thought this out very well?
Never said at any time it never happened.
The Constitution was not written with what the legal behavior of people would be.
The Constitution was written to make sure the behavior of GOVERNMENT was in check and limiting it, NOT the individual rights of the PEOPLE.
You think you know everything about everything.
Everybody is smarter than you and me and everyone else about something.
You are not a master of all trades so quit claiming to be.
You are very susceptible to rumor and innuendo that matches your ideology.
OK, so someone hacked your account and wrote this:
That is not what will happen as the burden of proof in ALL civil litigation is on the plaintiff to prove their case and in this statute that burden is they have to prove they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
That is the first stage and if they offer no evidence of that before trial in the rules of civil discovery the Judge DISMISSES the case on a Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed by the defense in all civil litigation. And if it passes past that and goes to trial the jury first has to find that there is evidence of firing because of sexual orientation ONLY and rules on that liability stage.
The next stage would be the damages and the plaintiff has to prove damages. If they were fired and found a job the next week what are their damages? Little to nothing?
You might as well give up now Rabbi because on my worst day with one hand tied behind my back I can beat you easily. You come with rank hear say rhetoric only.
The thrust of your post is that frivolous suits are not a worry because the standard of evidence is high. I have shown that such suits exist. They might prevail often enough. The threat of suits alone alters behavior by employers, imposing a cost on the firm and society.
Your response is an ad hom and some irrelevant bullshit about the Constitution. You have lost this argument. Yet again. Your boast about beating me with hands tied is laughably refuted.
You're dismissed.
