- Thanks to guestbloggers Victoria Pynchon (of Negotiation Law Blog) and Jason Barney for lending a hand last week;
- Will the U.S. government need to sponsor its own motorcycle gang in order to hold on to trademark confiscated from “Mongols” group? [WSJ law blog]
- With a little help for its friends: Florida Supreme Court strikes down legislated limits on fees charged by workers’ comp attorneys [St. Petersburg Times, Insurance Journal]
- Stripper, 44, files age discrimination complaint after losing job at Ontario club [YorkRegion.com, Blazing Cat Fur via Blog of Walker] The stripper age bias complaint we covered eight years ago was also from Ontario;
- Federal judge green-lights First Amendment suit by college instructor who says he was discriminated against for conservative political beliefs [NYLJ] (link fixed now)
- Judge orders parties to settle dispute over noisy parrots after it reaches £45,700 in legal costs [Telegraph]
- How to make sure you’re turned down when applying for admittance to the bar [Ambrogi, Massachusetts]
- Questions at depositions can be intended to humiliate and embarrass, not just extract relevant information [John Bratt, Baltimore Injury Lawyer via Miller]
Filed under: age discrimination, Canada, colleges and universities, discovery, Florida, guestbloggers, lawyering vs. privacy, Massachusetts, strippers and exotic dancers, trademarks, Victoria Pynchon
8 Comments
The article and linked decision about Desy (how not be admitted) is classic. One of his character witnesses was someone else the Mass. bar refused to admit. How could it have been better?
The link to the piece on the First Amendment suit by the college professor seems to be wrong.
Sorry, link fixed now.
Judge orders parties to settle dispute over noisy parrots after it reaches £45,700 in legal costs
Clearly this case calls for a Monty Python solution.
Well, that one-in-a-million conservative pol-sci prof is certainly ambitious, and I applaud him. And from my experience, cases of this kind certainly have basis in fact. But I’m inclined to believe that he’ll have a better chance of setting water on fire than he will at winning his case.
“But I’m inclined to believe that he’ll have a better chance of setting water on fire than he will at winning his case.”
Maybe, but it sounds like he is unusually well suited to win in that he has: (a) student evaluations that directly rebut the principal argument for dismissing him; (b) documents stating the school’s reasons for dismissing him that have already persuaded a judge that there is a good case that they dismissed him because they didn’t like his political views. It looks like he has the evidence that is often lacking in these cases.
The deposition question post leaves out necessary information. If the woman has an emotional distress claim, then the questions, even if not very tactfully asked, are most certainly discoverable, i.e. alternative sources of mental anguish.
Having said that, their probative value might be outweighed by the potential for undue prejudice.
Bill.
I noted your point as well, if only in thought. I still see a slog for this guy.