She thinks the question is unfair? I would not hire her for that reason alone. Reading that opinion does not give both sides of the story. That is not the purpose of a summary judgment opinion.”

The reason Stephens Hawkins is still considered intelligent is that he is able to communicate, otherwise he would be considered a drooling idiot.

All facts are PRESUMED in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.

One of these things is not like the other.

When you “just wow” this obvious fact, you lose credibility.

As opposed to: “Ultimately, I doubt it happened but, again, keep in mind that NONE OF US have seen the evidence. “

These are comments to a blog. Let’s not take ourselves too seriously.

I’m glad you would not be condescending, Richard. No, wait, your first words in your first comment on this were:

“Ron, it would appear that you are trying to convince yourself more than the rest of us.”

How many times are you going to beat the same dead horse? I (and many others) have stipulated that if her charges are true then she has a good case. I readily acknowledge that I am giving an opinion about a hypothetical case. I never presume that what is stated in a lawsuit or the newspaper account of it is true.

Also, since you are always doing this to everyone else, I will give you some gratuitous advice. You will get a much friendly response from others if you would refrain from treating everyone else as being less intelligent than you.

Yes Ron, the other people hired had inferior resumes.

Reading that opinion does not give both sides of the story.

Wow. Just wow.

But she would have a tough hill to climb if I was on the jury.

Of course. I bet you have friends that are conservative too.

“Professor Todd Pettys asked Wagner whether analysis or writing was more important to the LAWR position. Wagner responded that both were important to the job. When Professor Pettys later asked Wagner if she had to choose between writing or analysis as to which was more important, Wagner responded that the question was unfair because both were important, but if she had to choose, she would pick writing.
She further noted that all classes at the University teach legal analysis.”

She thinks the question is unfair? I would not hire her for that reason alone. Reading that opinion does not give both sides of the story. That is not the purpose of a summary judgment opinion.

Please keep in mind all these are the facts presumed to be true for summary judgment. These are not factual findings of the court.

Sure, it is rhethoric, GitarCarver as is your saying that it is one of the dumbest things I have ever said. I’ve said plenty dumber. Trust me.

If there was discrimination here that was actaully outcome determinative , it is the fact that she is pro-life. (Parenthetically, I’m pro-life.) If the facts were clear and unambiguous that they was discrimination for that specific purpose and you have a state actor, I think that is actionable. But she would have a tough hill to climb if I was on the jury.

Of course I am serious Ron.

I’ll repeat for the 1,000 time: if this happened as she alleged, it is a real bad thing.

This is condescending Ron. You aren’t willing to say that a person who was discriminated against should be compensated or the agency which failed to hire a person because of discrimination should be held accountable.

A “bad thing” is when you spill your milk. A “real bad thing ” is spilling your milk on your tie.

Discrimination is far worse than that.

This is the only discrimination case you have ever seem in your life that you thought was legit.

I am sorry Ron, but that is one of the dumbest things things you have ever said and dumbest pieces of rhetoric I have ever seen. You don’t know me well enough to know my history with discrimination cases, hiring of people, and firing those who did discriminate.

Ultimately, I doubt it happened but, again, keep in mind that NONE OF US have seen the evidence.

May I suggest you read the opinion and then try to make that statement stick?

It does look like she has a prima facie case, given both her qualifications in comparison to those of the successful candidate and what seems to me to be an unusual amount of detail as to who said what in the course of the hiring process.