KD in CA Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Here's a less biased view from the WSJ paper, not the blog. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1243382609...ogle_wsj_gadgv1 Thanks. She seems reasonable to me. Obviously Obama is going to pick someone left of center so I don't get what all the squawking is about. Of course, I also didn't get it when the lunatic fringe here was in hysterics over Alito and Roberts. One stance I'm not crazy about is this one: Judge Sotomayor often has sided with employees who claimed they were victims of discrimination or a hostile workplace Mostly because the majority of these types of suits are pure bullsh-- and the awards are frequently outlandish for the offense, but she doesn't appear to be a radical on the issue either, so I guess we'll live. All in all, replacing a moderate liberal with a moderate liberal. No big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Thanks. She seems reasonable to me. Obviously Obama is going to pick someone left of center so I don't get what all the squawking is about. Of course, I also didn't get it when the lunatic fringe here was in hysterics over Alito and Roberts. One stance I'm not crazy about is this one: Mostly because the majority of these types of suits are pure bullsh-- and the awards are frequently outlandish for the offense, but she doesn't appear to be a radical on the issue either, so I guess we'll live. All in all, replacing a moderate liberal with a moderate liberal. No big deal. Why do you say this? If there a high incidence of these types of cases being thrown out as frivolous or settled? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Why do you say this? If there a high incidence of these types of cases being thrown out as frivolous or settled? Just curious. There is an extremely high instance of these cases being settled because its cheaper and less distracting to settle than to fight, regardless of the merits of the claim. But I say they are mostly bullsh-- based primarily on my own experiences, in reviewing such cases for other companies (in due diligence and audit capacities) and in discussing the experiences of others in legal/hr positions. In one example, the EEOC was so arrogant they told me flat out they were making rulings to make 'an example' of entities that dared to layoff Arabs post-9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts