BF2S Forums US "Sue Culture"

...because our courts allow it..   Many other court systems are more vigilant in throwing out frivolous suits.

Fox News wrote:

The plaintiff in the case, Macrida Patterson, 52, attributed the May 2007 injury to a Victoria's Secret "low-rise v-string," according to a court document posted on The Smoking Gun.

I've found the problem.



*hides*

Turquoise wrote:

...because our courts allow it..   Many other court systems are more vigilant in throwing out frivolous suits.

But this (and Kmarions examples) is just plain bollocks,

They're going to have a hard time picking a jury with everyone falling off their chairs laughing.

Heres one from London

TheAussieReaper wrote:

The problem is that your Judges can award any kind of settlement they want, without regard to previous cases. If they had to rely on previous settlements you wouldn't have a repeat of dumb claims, as the reasons the first case was thrown out point to the next similar being just as worthless.

Precedents do still play a part actually.  It's generally looked down upon for a judge to disregard precedents.  Also, there is a countersue option that a defendant can use against a former plaintiff if he/she can prove that the suit was frivolous and costly.

Stingray24 wrote:

"injury of feelings"

You could always actually read the article.  It was a discrimination suit.  Injury of feelings was demonstration of damage.

SEREMAKER wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

"injury of feelings"

You could always actually read the article.  It was a discrimination suit.  Injury of feelings was demonstration of damage.

this was also during the interview that the hiree could not fit to the standards of the job and now is sueing bc she didn't get the job on basis of the scarf

In short, if your scarf gets in the way of the job...  tough shit....

At least, that's how it works here.  That's how it should work in the U.K. as well, but oh well....

Good God, the woman in the OP story was 52!!! EWWWWW!!!

The short answer: the allure of the almighty dollar is powerful. People love getting handouts that they don't deserve. It's been evidenced for decades, as I recall a Three Stooges short in which the trio attempted to scam a hotel by slipping on a bar of soap in the lobby. You can find countless examples of people who don't deserve money getting it. I recall one instance of someone getting hit by a train while walking (you've got to be somewhat stupid to be able to get hit by one on foot) and then suing the company because he/she didn't know the tracks were in use.

Your point?  She could just as easily cover the wall in photos.

I figure the law works differently in the U.K., but in my state, you can hire and fire people as you please.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Can you fire people for being black?

SEREMAKER wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Your point?  She could just as easily cover the wall in photos.

If the owner requires her employees to change up looks of there hair for style and popularity then wearing a scarf doesn't fit the requirements

What if I require my employees to show cleavage?  Can I then refuse to hire men>

SEREMAKER wrote:

and she could easily look for another line of work instead of sueing

She chose not to.

now you're grasping for straws, comparing an article of clothing to race ....... good one


showing cleavage ---- ever seen any hooter waiters