Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
I really don't think the plaintiff's main motivation was money. Their "leader" has been characterized as an "activist"--ie: fanatic. He has determined his "rights" and wants to cram them down everyone else's throat, regardless of collateral damage. It's all about me and my cause, and screw everyone else, as long as I get my way. He bears the same relationship to reasonable advocates for the hearing impaired as ISIS does to mainstream Islam or the KKK does to conservative policy.
However, it really isn't important to satisfy this lunatic. The LLLC needed to satisfy the JUDGE, which apparently they failed to do. I wish we all knew the dollar cost of satisfying the judge. I also wonder if the judge could order binding arbitration in this matter.
|
Like others here in my capacity over many years had to deal with federal issues of claims for discrimination race gender disability. It can get very ugly and unfortunately corporations more often than not are at a disadvantage especially if they accept federal funding or any part of their operation works in behalf of the federal government.
Arbitration is one solution but I never cared much for arbitration because you have one person making the decision. I skirted away from arbitration every chance I had. This is especially true for federal cases because the federal government is so absolute in its thinking. For instance try on for size reasonable accommodations. sufficient is to say the federal government can be quite creative in their interpretation of reasonable.
Your right about the judge and this is one of the first order of business with a lawsuit. Who is the judge and is s/he plaintiff/defendant oriented based on past cases, have any conflicts of interests, etc. However based on the fact that this lawsuit was filed eight years ago does not bode well for the defendants
Plainly speaking the plaintiffs ought to be ashamed of themselves but the lead plaintiff is a professional litigant..enough said.