Rob's House Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Democracy is imperfect.... it is just better than the alternatives. I don't necessarily agree with that, but judge-made law isn't exactly tied to democracy either way.
Mr. WEO Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Is there a group less inspiring of sympathy than the Jills?
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 I'm glad it isn't just me who gets the "sanctimonious" accusation when disagreeing with you on social issues. Have you ever thought that people are just disagreeing because they think differently to you and that actually they don't care about appearing morally superior they just genuinely have a different opinion? Can anyone please tell me if I can "Bookmark" or save a post to be able to link to it in the future?
boyst Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Either way, it is clear. The moralities seem to far differ from the legalities. In any point, legally, this likely to continue and favor in the side if the jills
mbossman2 Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 This ruling was important to moving the case forward thru the process. if the judge had ruled that a Jill is an independent contractor then the claims made in the suit would have been dead in the water. But based upon the existing case law, there is enough evidence pointing to the fact that the Jills were de facto employees so this case can then move forward. The judge allowing this to be a class action suit makes sense from an efficiency standpoint: it is easier, better, faster and cheaper for all involved for 1 case with 100 plaintiffs rather than 100 cases with 1 plaintiff (although there are multiple other implications of a class action suit vs individual suits)
GunnerBill Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 I don't necessarily agree with that, but judge-made law isn't exactly tied to democracy either way. In order to have democracy you need an arbitrator independent of the state to decide disputes between private individuals without applying the inherent bias of the state and to decide disputes between state and individual. I see no workable alternative to that save for an independent judiciary. What the judge has done in this case is not "make law" it is rule on a dispute based on law contained within legislation. The plaintiff will have put their case as to why this constitutes a tort and the defendant will have put their case as to why it doesn't. The Judge is not making a ruling on what the law should be here, he is applying the law to the facts of the case.
Luxy312 Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 At the end of the day, I don't think it matters all that much how this turns out. So what if they get a settlement like the Raiders cheerleaders? $1.25 million. Sounds great until you realize it covers 90 ladies. To boot, there is NOTHING requiring the Bills to have cheerleaders. They add zero enjoyment to watching NFL games IMO and add about the same to the brand. It's only a matter of time before the NFL cheerleader goes the way of the dodo bird. They're misogynistic, sexist, and just plain past their useful life. Kudos to the Bills, Bears, Browns, Giants, Lions, Packers and Steelers for not having them.
LeGOATski Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 At the end of the day, I don't think it matters all that much how this turns out. So what if they get a settlement like the Raiders cheerleaders? $1.25 million. Sounds great until you realize it covers 90 ladies. To boot, there is NOTHING requiring the Bills to have cheerleaders. They add zero enjoyment to watching NFL games IMO and add about the same to the brand. It's only a matter of time before the NFL cheerleader goes the way of the dodo bird. They're misogynistic, sexist, and just plain past their useful life. Kudos to the Bills, Bears, Browns, Giants, Lions, Packers and Steelers for not having them. I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think they'll go away any time soon. They're still useful ambassadors and make some money for the team, plus all college teams have cheerleaders. There are plenty of ladies trying out.
KD in CA Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Anyone remember when the early Jills were required to be married ? Time for the League teams to drop the ladies. The PC police have arrived. Mascot abuse will be next. Yup. It was clearly a voluntary activity, not a job. But it's easy for lawyers to exploit overreaching state employment laws these days, especially in states like New York. I think a lot of people here don't understand what a class action lawsuit means. Hundreds of Jills didn't decide to sue the Bills. Five of them and a lawyer did -- the others are just being dragged along. At the end of the day, I don't think it matters all that much how this turns out. So what if they get a settlement like the Raiders cheerleaders? $1.25 million. Sounds great until you realize it covers 90 ladies. To boot, there is NOTHING requiring the Bills to have cheerleaders. They add zero enjoyment to watching NFL games IMO and add about the same to the brand. It's only a matter of time before the NFL cheerleader goes the way of the dodo bird. They're misogynistic, sexist, and just plain past their useful life. Kudos to the Bills, Bears, Browns, Giants, Lions, Packers and Steelers for not having them. I think it's pretty obvious how it will turn out. Pegs will write a check because NYS is going to rule against the Bills. And that will be the end of it. People who think the Pegulas are going to write a big check and then hire all the Jills under all sorts of new and expensive employment rules just so they can have a T&A show on the sidelines are seriously deluded. Buffalo has seen it's last cheerleader.
Luxy312 Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Yup. It was clearly a voluntary activity, not a job. But it's easy for lawyers to exploit overreaching state employment laws these days, especially in states like New York. I think a lot of people here don't understand what a class action lawsuit means. Hundreds of Jills didn't decide to sue the Bills. Five of them and a lawyer did -- the others are just being dragged along. I think it's pretty obvious how it will turn out. Pegs will write a check because NYS is going to rule against the Bills. And that will be the end of it. People who think the Pegulas are going to write a big check and then hire all the Jills under all sorts of new and expensive employment rules just so they can have a T&A show on the sidelines are seriously deluded. Buffalo has seen it's last cheerleader. You hit the nail on the head IMO. Other teams will have to ask themselves as well if it's worth it. If a judge starts handing down $1 million judgments to NFL owners, can anyone really say with a straight face that it won't get any consideration in the decision making process? The Jills have been gone now for two years. Whether the Pegulas write a check for damages or just pay ridiculous legal fees to defend themselves, I think Buffalo has seen their last cheerleaders. At this point, it just turns into an attempted legal cash grab.
Mr. WEO Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 In order to have democracy you need an arbitrator independent of the state to decide disputes between private individuals without applying the inherent bias of the state and to decide disputes between state and individual. I see no workable alternative to that save for an independent judiciary. What the judge has done in this case is not "make law" it is rule on a dispute based on law contained within legislation. The plaintiff will have put their case as to why this constitutes a tort and the defendant will have put their case as to why it doesn't. The Judge is not making a ruling on what the law should be here, he is applying the law to the facts of the case. He is determining that the Jills were, essentially, employees of the Bills though. A central point of the Bills defense was that they were not. A jury won't get to decide that.
mbossman2 Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) He is determining that the Jills were, essentially, employees of the Bills though. A central point of the Bills defense was that they were not. A jury won't get to decide that. the definition of an independent contractor and employee has been a hot topic in the business world. legalzoom has an excellent blurb on it Edited January 11, 2016 by mbossman2
Mr. WEO Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 the definition of an independent contractor and employee has been a hot topic in the business world. legalzoom has an excellent blurb on it Hopefully the judge didn't cite that...
GunnerBill Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 He is determining that the Jills were, essentially, employees of the Bills though. A central point of the Bills defense was that they were not. A jury won't get to decide that. Again, I preface my comments with the fact that I am less familiar with the intricacies of the US legal system, however, fundamentally that isn't a point of law on which he has determined. So it isn't "judge made law". It is a finding based on the facts of the case. I don't know if it is common to have juries in civil proceedings in the US, but in the UK there is no remaining presumption for jury trial in tort proceedings and a contract case would never be heard by a jury.
Mr. WEO Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Again, I preface my comments with the fact that I am less familiar with the intricacies of the US legal system, however, fundamentally that isn't a point of law on which he has determined. So it isn't "judge made law". It is a finding based on the facts of the case. I don't know if it is common to have juries in civil proceedings in the US, but in the UK there is no remaining presumption for jury trial in tort proceedings and a contract case would never be heard by a jury. Torts routinely heard by jury here. That's why the judge's determination that they were employees is a huge burden for the defense. I may have been wrong upstream....I guess the defense will argue that they were not the employer going forward. Otherwise, if they concede they were the employer, they have no case.
GunnerBill Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Torts routinely heard by jury here. That's why the judge's determination that they were employees is a huge burden for the defense. I may have been wrong upstream....I guess the defense will argue that they were not the employer going forward. Otherwise, if they concede they were the employer, they have no case. Fair enough. Interesting difference in jury trial. Other than criminal proceedings almost nothing is jury trial anymore over here. I am assuming then that the Judge has made a preliminary ruling that there is enough evidence prima facie for the Jills to be considered employees and that the case can proceed to trial. I wouldn't expect that ruling to be binding on the jury if tort cases are usually subject to jury determination.
Rob's House Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 In order to have democracy you need an arbitrator independent of the state to decide disputes between private individuals without applying the inherent bias of the state and to decide disputes between state and individual. I see no workable alternative to that save for an independent judiciary. What the judge has done in this case is not "make law" it is rule on a dispute based on law contained within legislation. The plaintiff will have put their case as to why this constitutes a tort and the defendant will have put their case as to why it doesn't. The Judge is not making a ruling on what the law should be here, he is applying the law to the facts of the case. I wasn't saying this judge made the law (although I'd be curious to read his opinion to see if he followed the law) but was making a somewhat tangential point that the determination is based largely on case law which isn't inherently democratic.
GunnerBill Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) I wasn't saying this judge made the law (although I'd be curious to read his opinion to see if he followed the law) but was making a somewhat tangential point that the determination is based largely on case law which isn't inherently democratic. I am not sure I agree on your final point, but then maybe I wouldn't I am from a largely common law jurisdiction and you are from a jurisdiction with a written constitution. The philosophical and theoretical argument about which is more democratic is an interesting one. What history tells us is that written constitutions or written legal codes rarely arise from democracy. They normally arise from forms of autocracy. I should also say that I have done both in my career - I have led projects that have legislated to codify common law and I have abolished legislation that imposed statute on an area that benefited from the development of the common law. I don't think either are "perfect" systems but combined they give us (and I am guilty a little of lumping the UK and US in together there) independent legal systems that help uphold democracy. I should probably leave it there because otherwise I am disappearing down a rabbit hole that I am extremely interested in but that would bore a lot of posters silly. I would also be interested to read the Judge's opinion on the case if anyone comes across a copy please do post the link. Edited January 12, 2016 by GunnerBill
Beerball Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Can anyone please tell me if I can "Bookmark" or save a post to be able to link to it in the future? You can copy the address and send it to yourself via PM.
Recommended Posts