RightSeatGirl
KA'PLAH BITCHES!
Just guessing..but it will probably never see a courtroom.
NAACP sues US Airways, accuses it of discrimination
- Thread starter wheelsup
- Start date
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
RightSeatGirl
KA'PLAH BITCHES!
Out of court settlement?
Bingo!
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Bingo. I'm glad somebody knows how the game is played.
Baronman
Well-Known Member
Of course...Sue or threaten to sue someone with deep pockets and you'll get something out of it so that it goes away for them. Or you could threaten to boycott ala Rev Al. Gotta love the US legal system. Tort reform anybody? Time to reign in the leaches, I mean lawyers.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Flying airplanes is easy. All you do is say V2+15, VFS, mash the Nashville button and you're there! It's so easy, a child could do it with the proper training!
Both of our statements share one thing in common; neither are rooted in fact, and it would take some study of these respective areas to know why.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
:raises hand:
Whitehaven represent! Anyone that's driven through the MEM airport area knows what I mean. If it hadn't been for my brother and the rest of my family, you coulda even nicknamed me "Token." Although, I might take issue with the "protestant" part.
Baronman
Well-Known Member
How can one not notice the total paranoia that exists in the country? The fear of being sued is on the minds of every corporation, small business, property owner etc. It's much easier to sue than make money the hard way.
KLB
Well-Known Member
Well corporations have nothing to worry about if they don't give people a reason to sue. I'm pretty sure this just didn't just pop up out of thin air. There were probably complaints to management about the alleged mistreatment and no action was taken. Well I'm guessing the accusers could have just quit. But what would that change? The company would just go on allowing the mistreatment of another set of employees.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
The "tort lottery" that folks talk about very simply does not exist, save for in the eyes of the media and a public's mind which is uneducated on the subject.
Only 2% of civil cases actually make it to court, and filing a lawsuit just for s&g ain't something that most attorney's are very interested in. If you're filing a frivolous lawsuit with the hopes that it'll pay out, you stand a very real chance of either having your butt kicked, where you're now out not only attorney's fees, but your attorney could be out of the job. If you anger the other side enough, they're certainly capable of having sanctions brought against your attorney, and they can sanction them to the point that they can't practice law anymore.
There are systems in place to prevent attorney's from filing lawsuits that are meritless.
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Trust me, groups of people at every company, not just the airlines, have come up with far worse than that. If these people feel offended because they have never told a racist joke or anything, then I agree they should get what they're asking for. But if they can dish it out in private but just can't take any name calling, then that's a whole other story.
Orange Anchor
New Member
Not a lawyer but I would assume it implies "intent" and maybe planning or forethought which is absent from anything I ever saw at USAir.
CK
Well-Known Member
My old employer owned a crane company in addition to his steel company. One of his cranes was working on a site where a person fell and was paralized. This person filed a lawsuit naming every company that was involved on the site. He won and was awarded ten million dollars. There were five companies named that had to pay out. The way PA law is written, which ever company has the highest amount of liability insurance pays the most. My ex-employer carried six million in liability insurance where as the other four companies carried roughly one million. Even though my ex-employer was the least responsible, he had to pay six million dollars. Needless to say that was the end of his crane company. There was another case not too long ago where Conitnental was sued and lost a case for an absurd amount of money because a VFR only pilot flew a Baron into a mountain in IMC with both engines running.
Now there maybe a few things wrong with the above stories. I'm no lawyer and I doubt I ever will be. I am just retelling the stories as I was told. However I was spending six days a week with the owner of the crane company during this lawsuit and that is exactly how I remember it happening. I am certain there have been plenty of cases where a company was wrongfully sued.
Alex.
Edit: I guess you meant companies don't have to worry about employees suing if they treat them correctly. That makes much more sense.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
If you had ever been involved in mediation or negotiation of litigation settlements, you would know how wrong you are. The idea that companies and organizations pay out huge sums of money to make lawsuits "go away" is nothing more than a myth.
There are what attorneys call "nuisance settlements," but they are tiny sums of money that don't even come close to covering the plaintiff's legal bills. It's usually something the plaintiff accepts after years of legal battles and appeals when he realizes that his case is never going to get him anywhere. Companies and organizations usually make it very painful for the plaintiff before they ever shell out nuisance settlement money.
Orange Anchor
New Member
There must be SOME money in it. The yellow pages are bulging with ads and you can't turn on the television without someone telling you that somebody owes you BIG time and they will get YOUR money for you.
Saying that only 2% reach the courts means nothing. 2% of what? That makes about as much sense as the politicians bemoaning the profits of the 'big business' by stating dollars and NOT return on investment. "BIG OIL made BIG MONEY", they shout. Well, you would expect big companies, if they make a profit, to post BIG numbers. It ain't like Bubba's Bait Shack and Fine Eatery.
As for the 'uneducated', see those who believe the taxes coming will only be on the 'rich'.
Baronman
Well-Known Member
2% make it to court? Could be...
Either way the threat seems to be enough to drive people to pay....Every day in everything we do we are regulated and conscious of liability. Whether it be the guy who is too scared to turn off the seat belt sign to the restaurant owner who was too scared to let my nephew (2yr old) walk around his empty restaurant fearing he'd hit his head on a table. If he had cut his head it would have been our fault (according to me). Get some schmucky lawyer on it though and well, we'd have our hands out for money.
Either way the threat seems to be enough to drive people to pay....Every day in everything we do we are regulated and conscious of liability. Whether it be the guy who is too scared to turn off the seat belt sign to the restaurant owner who was too scared to let my nephew (2yr old) walk around his empty restaurant fearing he'd hit his head on a table. If he had cut his head it would have been our fault (according to me). Get some schmucky lawyer on it though and well, we'd have our hands out for money.
lostplanetairman
Well-Known Member
I don't know whether anyone has read the actual complaint that was filed: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/08/EmployPhilly.pdf
I don't know whether they first went through the EEOC, were found to have no merit and then issued the right to sue letter, or whether they are going the court route outside of the EEOC. There's a lot of money that changes hands there too: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm
My wife's company spent over $100,000 to settle a suit that was dismissed by both the EEOC and the PA Human Relations Commission as having no merit. The plaintiff went to Federal Court, petitioned to be represented en pauperis, and it was granted. The subsequent investigation found that she had lied on her employment application, had been fired from her prior employer for cause of action similar to the cause at my wife's work. Finally, my wife's employer's attorney urged them to get it over with and settle. The plaintiff got $15,000 and the lawyers got a lot of money getting to that settlement. Taxpayers paid for the plaintiff's lawyers.
If a suit gets to court, there are big bucks involved--it's very expensive to get that far in the process. Usually, things emerge in discovery to speed up the settlement process. Or else, one side says enough with the legal fees and urges settlement.
I don't know whether they first went through the EEOC, were found to have no merit and then issued the right to sue letter, or whether they are going the court route outside of the EEOC. There's a lot of money that changes hands there too: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm
My wife's company spent over $100,000 to settle a suit that was dismissed by both the EEOC and the PA Human Relations Commission as having no merit. The plaintiff went to Federal Court, petitioned to be represented en pauperis, and it was granted. The subsequent investigation found that she had lied on her employment application, had been fired from her prior employer for cause of action similar to the cause at my wife's work. Finally, my wife's employer's attorney urged them to get it over with and settle. The plaintiff got $15,000 and the lawyers got a lot of money getting to that settlement. Taxpayers paid for the plaintiff's lawyers.
If a suit gets to court, there are big bucks involved--it's very expensive to get that far in the process. Usually, things emerge in discovery to speed up the settlement process. Or else, one side says enough with the legal fees and urges settlement.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Indeed, there's a reason we have summary judgment and a bunch of ways to dismiss cases.
lostplanetairman
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. But in my wife's experience, you are not even getting to summary judgment. Even getting to that phase means big bucks expended because it's still court. Instead, they are reaching a settlement in advance of that because, either something is found in discovery or because the costs are getting too high to continue.