Dry Cleaners Won’t Press Suit
The story of ALJ Roy Pearson and his $54 million pants isn’t over just yet. From the Washington Post:
[T]he small-business owners sued by D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson withdrew their demand that he pay nearly $83,000 for their legal bills, saying that enough money had been raised from supporters to cover the expenses and that they want to end the fighting.The cleaners want Pearson, who could soon be out of a job, to do the same….
It would make for an ironic conclusion to the case: Pearson effectively benefiting from the generosity of some of the very people who vilified his suit and came to the aid of the Chungs.
No comment from Pearson on the latest news:
Pearson has not responded to requests for comment on developments in the case. Early last night, he could not reached by telephone, and he did not respond to a message sent to his personal e-mail address.
Any guesses on that “personal e-mail address”? Crazypants at hotmail dot com? Or is Judge Pearson cool enough to use Gmail?
Update: Thanks, Mr. and Mrs. Chung, but no thanks. Roy Pearson has filed his notice of appeal.
Dry Cleaners Cut Plaintiff Some Slack [Washington Post via How Appealing]
Pearson to Appeal Pants Verdict [Washington Post]
(37) Comments
Comments
Nope
PRIMO!
FIZZIRST BITCHESSSS!
Morons two and three -- see one.
Enjoy waiting for your bar exam failure notices/nth rejection letters.
"won't press suit"
"cut... some slack"
Clever, but groan worthy ;)
Pearson is filing an appeal. Its in WaPo.
I can't believe they had to pay that much money just to learn whether they had violated the law.
The legal system is designed to maximize lawyer revenues, at the expense of every other interest.
Flavia has a poopy bottom and needs a diaper.
From the DC Bar website:
Roy L Pearson Jr
D.C. Office Of Administrative Hearings
825 N. Capitol Street N.E.
Suite 4168
Washington DC 20002
Email: roypearsonjr@verizon.net
Phone:
Fax:
Membership Status: Active
Disciplinary history: None
Date of admission: May 26, 1978
It was funnier without the "(Geddit?)," Lat. And not exactly too subtle, either.
Can we invent a legal system where, when the facts are not in dispute, it only costs, oh $5,000, to see whether the law was violated?
What a joke our system is.
WTF is up with deleting comments Lat, you douchebag.
This appeal should be moved to the 7th circuit and given to the panel from Bernier v. Morningstar.
Incredible.
Nice move by the Chungs. He's crazy, so of course he rejects their offer. But they're on record as unequivocably offering a chance for all parties to walk away. Their fee demand after he loses the appeal gains that much more leverage.
In some of the coverage of this absurd lawsuit, I got the sense (comments of ex-wife, others), that this guy was once a capable and successful (and rational) attorney/ALJ, and that his decline is the result of a progressing mental illness. That's made it hard to enjoy the jokes about this case, kind of like laughing at the antics of the retarded kid in the neighborhood. It's too bad no one close to him was able to intervene.
7:33, i believe you have just described a solid 1/3 to 1/2 of all litigation. though i may have a biased point of view, given that i work in the wacko-intensive field of employment law.
"given that i work in the wacko-intensive field of employment law."
Right, the people who sue the companies you represent aren't minorities seeking a fair shake in the workplace. They're "whackos."
Good luck with the whole advocating for racists thing dirtbag.
8:18,
Clearly you don't pratice employment law, but have you ever even *read* an employment law decision? At least 75% of Title VII claims are brought by crazy/dishonest people who did crazy/disonest things to get themselves fired and/or disciplined at work, then bring frivolous lawsuits claiming "retaliation" based on the fact that they're black/white/male/female/straight/gay/bisexual/married/unmarried/etc., as the case may be.
8:18,
Clearly you don't pratice employment law, but have you ever even *read* an employment law decision? At least 75% of Title VII claims are brought by crazy/dishonest people who did crazy/dishonest things to get themselves fired and/or disciplined at work, then bring frivolous lawsuits claiming "retaliation" based on the fact that they're black/white/male/female/straight/gay/bisexual/married/unmarried/etc., as the case may be.
8:18, what field are you in? there are plenty of meritorious employment suits out there, but a huge number are filed (often pro se) by people who are certifiable wackos. and a sizable chunk (maybe a majority) of the wackos these days are actually white folks who have decided that the existence of all these EEO laws must mean that now they're somehow getting the short end of the stick.
pick any federal judge's docket at random, browse the employment discrimination complaints for 5 minutes, and you'll see what i mean.
and in further support of my corporate clients, i will also go on the record that most large organizations are too inept even to discriminate effectively.
8:51: Right. I can't stand all these people who keep bringing frivolous lawsuits based on the fact that they are white, male, straight or married. Oh wait...
" At least 75% of Title VII claims are brought by crazy/dishonest people who did crazy/disonest things to get themselves fired and/or disciplined at work, then bring frivolous lawsuits claiming "retaliation" based on the fact that they're black/white/male/female/straight/gay/bisexual/married/unmarried/etc., as the case may be."
Fuck you scumbag. The "they're crazy" defense is the lowest form of racist advocacy, and is arguably illegal any way, per the ADA.
You are the lowest form of lawyer. You take the few pioneering minorities, who are only trying to break into an all white work force and make a living, and help crush this basic and honorable desire. I hope any harm you cause these poor people is returned to you and your family ten fold.
Here are some "crazy" numbers for you 8:50.
Median salaries by demographic group:
White men: $45,800
White women: $40,700
Black men: $28,500
Hispanic men: $25,500
Whites earn TWICE what minorities earn in this country. Dirtbag asshole.
source for numbers in prior post http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/08/03/nyregion/20070803_WOMEN_GRAPHIC1.html
i hope this is flamebait. EEO laws serve a purpose, and clearly there are meritorious suits. but to deny that there are frivolous suits is, well, wacko.
Link to a complaint from a "frivolous" discrimination suit and we'll see what you mean.
To deny that there are frivolous suits is indeed wacko, but to claim or imply that all of the classes that you listed start frivolous suits is silly. You just didn't want to say anything that would offend the PC left (and apparently, you were not even successful with that, see 11:21, 11:33).
11:43: One of them, which involves one of the nation's top law firms, has been discussed extensively on this very website.
touche
11:21,
You're just establishing further that you haven't any degree of familiarity with the actual practice of employment discrimination law. You're probably some 2L (at Michigan or NYU, if I had to wager a guess) who's read a couple of cases about downtrodden minority workers fighting the good fight against The Man and have now filled your head with delusions that that's what most complaints of this sort involve in the real world. Go read some cases and come back when you've graduated.
Fed Soc - it's virtually impossible to say anything that doesn't offend the PC left, even for me, and I'm center-left.
Fed Soc,
I'm not sure if your 11:49 PM comment was directed to me, but if so, I wasn't just being PC with my list of crazy discrimination claims. When I was clerking I actually saw frivolous discrimination suits alleging discrimination against white, straight, married men. Granted, it was a single case brought by a (crazy) white, straight, married man, but Title VII abuse is certainly not limited to the groups that Title VII was presumably intended to benefit.
11:33,
What on Earth does that have to do with anything I said?
do your own homework, 11:43.
I don't work in the employment law area, but I have seen some pathetic discrimination claims filed while reviewing the litigation files of potential targets. One that springs to mind was a janitor of private university who was fired after being caught several times sleeping in the dorm rooms that he was supposed to be cleaning.
Loving "press suit" and "cut slack"
(whether it's cool to or not)
i had a complaint where someone claimed they approached a healthcare employee in a parking lot, completely out of the blue, and handed them a resume. she admitted no prior experience in the company's field (radiology). she never heard back from the company (probably because random employee in the parking lot just tossed the resume - no one had any record of it), and she sued for discrimination based on race, sex and disability. she thought the claim was worth about $3 mil. discovery revealed she had been fired about 5 yrs prior because she stopped coming to work and hadn't been employed since.
Good decision to take 5:30's advice Lat and delete the "Geddit" parenthetical from the title. You sounded a little like a middle school kid making his first pun.
Now that you've got all the casual empiricists in the country posting to this thread, why not do a mini-lecture on the concept of sample bias?