When I finished reading the story, I found myself shaking my head in disgust. It seems we now have a new breed of ‘Ambulance Chasers’. BUT, it has spread from the lawyers to the general public. If a person thinks that they can profit from a perceived mishap, they sue. No mention of personal responsibility at all…it is now comming down to this: “I screwed up, but how can I make someone else pay for my mistake?”
Sooo, when will this cycle of litigation end?
Will it take certain nominations to the courts that will see these cases before them and put them in the circular file as they should be?
Or, will it take a generation of children that are raised with the knowledge that nothing comes easy, and you must earn what you want yourself, and that nothing is a handout?
The article says she was found to have been reprimanded because she was a woman. Assuming that fact to be true–and you were not on the jury, so you’d better assume it to be true–do you have a problem with awarding quite reasonable damages ($75K) to an employee who was penalized because she has XX chromosomes?
Even better, does anyone have a cite from a real news source rather than an editorial?
MINDY: I never said that the editorial was a basis for my questions, it was merely a launching pad for my disgust with those that will use their gender as an easy excuse to sue for reasons not related to sexual harassment.
It’s early and I am frustrated, so this may come across garbled.
Did the woman in the editorial break the rules concerning the ‘park’ they were in? If so, her reprimand was justified. So why did she sue? Was she just mad that she got caught, and decided to vent her frustration out on the university using sexual harassment as her tool?
I have no problem with settlements being paid to those that have been a victim of REAL sexual harassment. I will not accept any cases where a person is paid a settlement because they used their gender as leverage to scare a corporation/college/whatever into paying, instead of fighting a ridiculous lawsuit, thus tarnishing their image doing so.
Not true. The jury found that she would not have been reprimanded if she were a man. Her own bad behavior undoubtedly contributed to the small amount of her damages, but it does not alter the fact that she was treated more harshly because she was a woman. Again, do you have a problem with women employees recovering damages from their employees when they are treated more harshly because of their gender?
Uh, yeah, and there are people who are FOR that kind of stuff? Note also that is apparently not what happened in this case. The university litigated the hell out of the case and the jury decided they were wrong.
The article says she was found to have been reprimanded because she was a woman. Assuming that fact to be true–and you were
not on the jury, so you’d better assume it to be true–do you have a problem with awarding quite reasonable damages ($75K) to an
employee who was penalized because she has XX chromosomes?
The, “because”, you use was not what the court said, it is what the plaintiff used as their basis for the lawsuit. “I was reprimanded because I was a woman” The jury did not ‘find’ that this was so, they merely agreed with the case that the plaintiff brought before them.
The article says she was found to have been reprimanded because she was a woman. Assuming that fact to be true–and you were
not on the jury, so you’d better assume it to be true–do you have a problem with awarding quite reasonable damages ($75K) to an
employee who was penalized because she has XX chromosomes?
The, “because”, you use was not what the court said, it is what the plaintiff used as their basis for the lawsuit. “I was reprimanded because I was a woman” The jury did not ‘find’ that this was so, they merely agreed with the case that the plaintiff brought before them.
Same thing. Juries find facts. If the jury found the university liable for gender discrimination, it was necessarily because the jurors decided the plaintiff had been fired because of her gender, and that “breaking the rules” was merely a pretext for gender discrimination.
Same thing. Juries find facts.
_____________________________
Juries DO NOT find facts. A jury’s duty is to decide whether the state or plantiff has proved their case. This is exactly what I stated. The jury agreed with the case brought before them.
IMNAL (but Minty is) and I think the correct term here is gender discrimination, not sexual harrassment. Both are illegal and somewhat related in that sexual harrassment is most often a form of gender discrimination, but gender discrimination doesn’t have to include a sexual harrassment component.
And if schools don’t want to get sued, schools should keep their noses clean.
Yes, it frustrating that the costs of lawsuits get passed on to the consumer. But lawsuits are the stick that we have
Same thing. Juries find facts.
_____________________________
Juries DO NOT find facts. A jury’s duty is to decide whether the state or plantiff has proved their case. This is exactly what I stated. The jury agreed with the case brought before them.
I think the case used in this editorial is an extreme one, but as was discussed, it was proven in court that her gender affected the way she was treated, whether or not she “screwed up.” In general, being harassed is a painful thing and it takes a lot to level charges. Women who have been raped talk themselves out of pressing charges, let alone women who been harassed in non-assault ways. This is especially true where there is an environment where levelling such charges is considered petty and vindictive. In my workplace, jokes are made about a hostile environment, etc., and I put up with questionable things because of the crap I would get if I complained. I have to believe that if someone comes forwward, they must have been facing pretty bad circumstances.
In our society, being paid is the way damage is corrected; does this make it a handout or a recompense for damage done?
Why is it so often the case that the people who complain the most about the legal system have no idea how it actually functions? navtechie, the principle that juries make findings of fact is about as basic a legal concept as it gets. Don’t believe me? Okey doke, let’s go to Black’s Law Dictionary:
Oh, and Dangerosa is correct that sexual harassment is one subspecies of gender discrimination. The article cited in the OP does not lead me to believe that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill gender discrimination case.
Whoops, you’re correct about no firing, Qwerty. It still looks like a straightforward employment discrimination suit to me, though. Reprimand can be (due to its impact on raises, promotions, etc.) an actionable adverse job action all by itself, but it’s also possible that there were additional facts that showed a pattern of sexual harassment. Either way, if a man would have faced the exact same treatment, the university could not have been found liable, as there would have been no poor treatment based on the plaintiff’s gender.
Jet lag. I’m still on Greenwich Mean Time. Fortunately, I have until Oct. 1 to get over it.
But I really did mean “sexual harassment” in that instance. The editorial cited in the OP is very sketchy on the facts of this case. Although a gender-motivated reprimand by itself would still be actionable, it’s possible the reprimand was only one instance of harassment the plaintiff was subjected to. Like I said earlier, anyone have a cite to a real news source?
I don’t think the article said whether Sandra Banack was a student or teacher, but I got the impression she was the former.
**
Possible? Yes. But I don’t think that we can assume that.
So a man has to have this happen to him to balance it out? Just because that may not have happened doesn’t make this sexual harassment.
I think that this is too complicated to break down to one variable: gender. Every situation has unique circumstances. I don’t believe that anyone can say with absolute certainty whether this is a case of discrimination, or a standard practice that both sexs would get.
That’s true of nearly every dispute, Qwerty, whether or not it involves gender or a contract or a criminal assault. But decisions about what happened still have to be made, and that’s why we let juries hear the testimony, examine the evidence, and decide what really happened. It might be ridiculous for us to make conclusions about what really happened based on a couple paragraphs in a Fox News editorial, but it is certainly not ridiculous for the jury to decide after examining all the evidence.
Fortunately, I have until Oct. 1 to get over it. 