Kevin and Deborah both presented segments of a mock trial, and delivered case law updates, during the well-attended and nationally regarded trial lawyer's seminar, annually offered by the New Jersey Association for Justice. Kevin serves as the Chair for the NJAJ's Labor and Employment Section.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Kevin Costello Named to Chairmanship of NJAJs 2010 Meadowland Seminar Employment Program
For several years now, Kevin has been pleased and honored to be asked by the New Jersey Association for Justice to Chair the "Meadowland Seminar" Employment Program, which teaches employment trial advocacy to members of the plaintiff bar. "Like I always say," says Kevin, "I always feel like I learn as much from teaching as I hope the attendees get from having me, and it's always an honor to moderate for, and sit in panel with, so many talented colleagues from both sides of the aisle." Kevin will as usual deliver his popular "Top Ten Cases in Employment Law" and moderate the rest of the panel presentation.
Why Arbitration Agreements Are Un-American
This post was originally published on March 18, 2010: Why Arbitration Agreements Are Un-American
I know that I blogged about this before, but the situation is only getting worse because the mood in the country is only getting more paranoid, suspicious and self-interested. Agreements to arbitrate employment rights claims, as well as claims involving many other rights, are being forced on Americans.
This allows corporate America to chip away at civil liberties while at the same time making everyone feel grateful that they – or members of their family – “still have jobs.” It allows corporate America and its apologists on both sides of the political aisle to rationalize the destruction of one of the principals on which America was founded – the right to a trial by jury – under the guise of “tightening belts” and “economic efficiency.”
I had a client come to us the other day who had been viciously, repeatedly and horribly sexually harassed at work. The disgusting commentary and the smugness with which it was delivered by her co-workers and by management was truly outrageous. They never seemed very nervous about what she would do, and she always wondered why. She came to see me, explained the situation, and we initiated a lawsuit.
Once we initiated the lawsuit, I found out why the perpetrators were so smug.
Although my client had forgotten doing so, she had signed an agreement to “binding arbitration” of any “dispute arising from” her employment relationship.
Before I get back to the case of Mrs. X, let me tell you a little bit about these “binding arbitration” agreements, the people who arbitrate cases (usually) under these agreements and why they exist.
Once again, as usual, it’s a question of what the conspirators want you to believe and what is the truth.
What they want you to believe is what it says in the Federal Arbitration Act, what it says in arbitration agreements, and what any corporate type will tell you if you talk to them about the subject matter. Incidentally, it’s the same thing that most defense lawyers will tell you. It’s the same thing that most Republican legislators and quite a number of Democratic legislators will tell you. It’s the same thing that the Federal Chamber of Commerce will tell. It’s certainly what the HR and PR people in the pharmaceutical, manufacturing, financial, medical and any number of other corporate sectors will tell you.
What these people all have in common, of course, is that they do long range strategic planning for their companies and for their industry. They understand that a penny spent early is a dollar saved later. So what’s their “penny” spent early?
It's paying an arbitrator fees to decide a case, rather than having the case decided in a court of law, where justice is essentially free. Why, you ask, would a company voluntarily pay an arbitrator as much as $400.00 or more per hour, racking up tens of thousands in arbitration fees over the course of the particular piece of arbitration, when it can have free access to a judge and jury?
The answer, of course, must be that the company thinks it's going to benefit from spending that extra money somehow. So how do you think it intends to benefit? It benefits, of course, because the arbitrators, by and large, don’t render the same kinds of verdicts that juries do. Arbitrators understand that for the most part, the corporation is paying their fees (we’ll get to what happens when individual litigants are expected to “share” arbitrators' fees in a minute). They understand that it’s corporations, corporate attorneys and corporate lobbyists and their legislator allies who create anti-consumer and anti-civil rights statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act. These corporate types are the reason the arbitrators and the organizations which administrate arbitrations have a living.
In short, they understand on which side their bread is buttered and, for the most part, unfortunately, they tend to deliver accordingly. Arbitration results, by and large, are manifestly less favorable to plaintiffs than jury verdicts. Statistically, more cases are lost by employment plaintiffs in arbitration than are lost by employment plaintiffs in State court and even in Federal court, where the rules can sometimes be “anti-plaintiff” and where some of the judiciary might be somewhat conservative in its leanings.
I’m not getting into, in this article the specifics of how, consciously or unconsciously, arbitrators lean in favor of corporations and how they tend to minimize their verdicts, restrict access to certain types of damages, restrict access to certain types of information that the plaintiffs need to prove their cases, etc. I really don’t care whether they are doing it consciously or unconsciously, what I care about is the fact that they are doing it at all.
All you need to see is the “you know what” – eating grin on the face of the corporate representatives and corporate attorneys when they leave in arbitration where they might have paid $20,000 or $30,000 in arbitrator fees but won a case that they would have lost in front of a jury, of where they minimized a verdict in a case where a jury might have done a considerably better job. They realize they're making an investment, over the course of many such cases, and that investment is going to pay dividends in the long term.
It’s why those companies will tell you anything they need to tell you in order to get you to support initiatives or statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act and why they constantly try to “hide” pro-arbitration provisions in all sorts of bills having nothing whatsoever to do with the management of workers in this country. It’s why some defense firms are even attempting to get unions to waive the rights of its members in favor of arbitration of all work related claims in Collective Bargaining Agreements.
I’m going to say this without drama and without flare, because I want you to understand how important it is: arbitration of any dispute which is compelled or coerced is un-American and eats away at your civil liberties, whether you realize it or not, whether you want to admit it or not.
The day that corporations are looking for will not be long in arriving: when they can manage and anticipate the dollar cost of human suffering and simply decide when it's okay and not okay to hurt their workers, discriminate against them, retaliate against them and abuse them. They'll simply decide how much money they think they'll need to spend to win the arbitration, and then they'll do whatever they feel that they need to do, knowing that the cost is predictable and manageable.
The first time that a corporation does something voluntarily for the good of mankind will be the first time, in my book. Any time a corporation does something “good,” it's got an angle. I don’t believe corporations will ever do the right thing or look for the right method of dispute resolution simply because it's fair and just. They'll look for the efficient, effective and inexpensive method of dispute resolution because it minimizes the cost of hurting people.
I don’t mean to insult all arbitrators, but I do mean to insult the ones that know where their bread is buttered and who act accordingly. I do intend to “call out” the individuals who'll talk out of one side of their face, calling me an alarmist for ranting and raving about this, and suggest that arbitration is just fine while speaking publicly, but who'll privately giggle and laugh at the idea that anyone actually believes that arbitration isn’t an atrocity.
But it gets worse. Much worse. So far, I’ve been talking about the arbitration agreements that involve the corporation paying the full cost. These are unfair. They restrict access to information. They restrict the time within which the plaintiff can marshal information to bear their burden of proof. They restrict rights. They restrict damages. But at least the corporation pays the bill, which means that an individual earning a middle class living wage doesn’t have to worry about paying an arbitrator for the privilege of justice.
Yet courts will also enforce arbitration agreements that require the injured worker to pay half the cost of arbitration. The words “equal” and “fair” are used to explain this horrific practice, as if the corporation, possessed of hundreds of thousands, millions or billions in assets, is somehow “equally positioned” to spend, when compared to the $39,000 a year worker discriminatorily discharged with two kids and a spouse to support at home.
What a joke.
The corporations know that this is piggish and disgusting. Yet they include this language in agreements every day. Want to know why? Because no matter whether a judge wishes to be fair or unfair about the impact of such agreements, the Federal Arbitration Act and the State Arbitration Act tend to tie judicial hands when attempting to interpret these agreements. Some judges, out of a sense of higher justice, will rule against the Act and fail to enforce those particular provisions of arbitration agreements while still sending the matter to arbitration. They will require that the corporation pay all fees on the grounds that any requirement that an individual pay anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000 in arbitrators’ fees is as good as saying only the wealthiest workers in this country have any rights at all.
Most judges, however, will feel beholden to follow the law as they understand it and some are happy to see matters leave their court room and become someone else’s problem.
These arbitration agreements are even worse than un-American. They are fascist. They are as bad as a “no frills auto insurance policy”, which provides basically no coverage whatsoever for a highly reduced premium. It’s the same as building a house in a swamp or buying a swaybacked horse. No matter how cheap the deal is, if you can make no use of it whatsoever, than it's no deal at all.
“Arbitration” agreements are not “fair.” They are not “equal.” They are not “efficient” methods of delivering “justice.” They are not “alternative dispute resolution.”
These are tough economic times. Corporations are “tightening their belts” across the country. Yet CEOs, board of directors’ members and other executives seem to have record salaries despite the poor economic times. Tax payers seem to be called upon to bail out people who draft their own golden parachutes with the bail out money and then laugh at the rest of us because we were suckered into the bail out. Corporate wrongdoers still get to avoid jail when they should be held personally accountable for anything they do wrong in the name of service to the corporation's ever growing greed.
“Chambers of Commerce,” really just lobbying organizations for corporate greed, keep “spinning” all kinds of nonsense about the need for “tort reform” and whittling away at the system of justice instead of admitting that the system of justice is fine, but that the corporate culture in the country is toxic, un-American and horrid.
Fight arbitration agreements. Don’t sign them. Insist on negotiation. Don’t support candidates that support arbitration agreements. Insist they explain how and why this doesn’t hurt people. Explain to your bosses, co-workers and union representatives that you don’t want them.
Because on the journey to justice, arbitration agreements are land mines.
I know that I blogged about this before, but the situation is only getting worse because the mood in the country is only getting more paranoid, suspicious and self-interested. Agreements to arbitrate employment rights claims, as well as claims involving many other rights, are being forced on Americans.
This allows corporate America to chip away at civil liberties while at the same time making everyone feel grateful that they – or members of their family – “still have jobs.” It allows corporate America and its apologists on both sides of the political aisle to rationalize the destruction of one of the principals on which America was founded – the right to a trial by jury – under the guise of “tightening belts” and “economic efficiency.”
I had a client come to us the other day who had been viciously, repeatedly and horribly sexually harassed at work. The disgusting commentary and the smugness with which it was delivered by her co-workers and by management was truly outrageous. They never seemed very nervous about what she would do, and she always wondered why. She came to see me, explained the situation, and we initiated a lawsuit.
Once we initiated the lawsuit, I found out why the perpetrators were so smug.
Although my client had forgotten doing so, she had signed an agreement to “binding arbitration” of any “dispute arising from” her employment relationship.
Before I get back to the case of Mrs. X, let me tell you a little bit about these “binding arbitration” agreements, the people who arbitrate cases (usually) under these agreements and why they exist.
Once again, as usual, it’s a question of what the conspirators want you to believe and what is the truth.
What they want you to believe is what it says in the Federal Arbitration Act, what it says in arbitration agreements, and what any corporate type will tell you if you talk to them about the subject matter. Incidentally, it’s the same thing that most defense lawyers will tell you. It’s the same thing that most Republican legislators and quite a number of Democratic legislators will tell you. It’s the same thing that the Federal Chamber of Commerce will tell. It’s certainly what the HR and PR people in the pharmaceutical, manufacturing, financial, medical and any number of other corporate sectors will tell you.
What these people all have in common, of course, is that they do long range strategic planning for their companies and for their industry. They understand that a penny spent early is a dollar saved later. So what’s their “penny” spent early?
It's paying an arbitrator fees to decide a case, rather than having the case decided in a court of law, where justice is essentially free. Why, you ask, would a company voluntarily pay an arbitrator as much as $400.00 or more per hour, racking up tens of thousands in arbitration fees over the course of the particular piece of arbitration, when it can have free access to a judge and jury?
The answer, of course, must be that the company thinks it's going to benefit from spending that extra money somehow. So how do you think it intends to benefit? It benefits, of course, because the arbitrators, by and large, don’t render the same kinds of verdicts that juries do. Arbitrators understand that for the most part, the corporation is paying their fees (we’ll get to what happens when individual litigants are expected to “share” arbitrators' fees in a minute). They understand that it’s corporations, corporate attorneys and corporate lobbyists and their legislator allies who create anti-consumer and anti-civil rights statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act. These corporate types are the reason the arbitrators and the organizations which administrate arbitrations have a living.
In short, they understand on which side their bread is buttered and, for the most part, unfortunately, they tend to deliver accordingly. Arbitration results, by and large, are manifestly less favorable to plaintiffs than jury verdicts. Statistically, more cases are lost by employment plaintiffs in arbitration than are lost by employment plaintiffs in State court and even in Federal court, where the rules can sometimes be “anti-plaintiff” and where some of the judiciary might be somewhat conservative in its leanings.
I’m not getting into, in this article the specifics of how, consciously or unconsciously, arbitrators lean in favor of corporations and how they tend to minimize their verdicts, restrict access to certain types of damages, restrict access to certain types of information that the plaintiffs need to prove their cases, etc. I really don’t care whether they are doing it consciously or unconsciously, what I care about is the fact that they are doing it at all.
All you need to see is the “you know what” – eating grin on the face of the corporate representatives and corporate attorneys when they leave in arbitration where they might have paid $20,000 or $30,000 in arbitrator fees but won a case that they would have lost in front of a jury, of where they minimized a verdict in a case where a jury might have done a considerably better job. They realize they're making an investment, over the course of many such cases, and that investment is going to pay dividends in the long term.
It’s why those companies will tell you anything they need to tell you in order to get you to support initiatives or statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act and why they constantly try to “hide” pro-arbitration provisions in all sorts of bills having nothing whatsoever to do with the management of workers in this country. It’s why some defense firms are even attempting to get unions to waive the rights of its members in favor of arbitration of all work related claims in Collective Bargaining Agreements.
I’m going to say this without drama and without flare, because I want you to understand how important it is: arbitration of any dispute which is compelled or coerced is un-American and eats away at your civil liberties, whether you realize it or not, whether you want to admit it or not.
The day that corporations are looking for will not be long in arriving: when they can manage and anticipate the dollar cost of human suffering and simply decide when it's okay and not okay to hurt their workers, discriminate against them, retaliate against them and abuse them. They'll simply decide how much money they think they'll need to spend to win the arbitration, and then they'll do whatever they feel that they need to do, knowing that the cost is predictable and manageable.
The first time that a corporation does something voluntarily for the good of mankind will be the first time, in my book. Any time a corporation does something “good,” it's got an angle. I don’t believe corporations will ever do the right thing or look for the right method of dispute resolution simply because it's fair and just. They'll look for the efficient, effective and inexpensive method of dispute resolution because it minimizes the cost of hurting people.
I don’t mean to insult all arbitrators, but I do mean to insult the ones that know where their bread is buttered and who act accordingly. I do intend to “call out” the individuals who'll talk out of one side of their face, calling me an alarmist for ranting and raving about this, and suggest that arbitration is just fine while speaking publicly, but who'll privately giggle and laugh at the idea that anyone actually believes that arbitration isn’t an atrocity.
But it gets worse. Much worse. So far, I’ve been talking about the arbitration agreements that involve the corporation paying the full cost. These are unfair. They restrict access to information. They restrict the time within which the plaintiff can marshal information to bear their burden of proof. They restrict rights. They restrict damages. But at least the corporation pays the bill, which means that an individual earning a middle class living wage doesn’t have to worry about paying an arbitrator for the privilege of justice.
Yet courts will also enforce arbitration agreements that require the injured worker to pay half the cost of arbitration. The words “equal” and “fair” are used to explain this horrific practice, as if the corporation, possessed of hundreds of thousands, millions or billions in assets, is somehow “equally positioned” to spend, when compared to the $39,000 a year worker discriminatorily discharged with two kids and a spouse to support at home.
What a joke.
The corporations know that this is piggish and disgusting. Yet they include this language in agreements every day. Want to know why? Because no matter whether a judge wishes to be fair or unfair about the impact of such agreements, the Federal Arbitration Act and the State Arbitration Act tend to tie judicial hands when attempting to interpret these agreements. Some judges, out of a sense of higher justice, will rule against the Act and fail to enforce those particular provisions of arbitration agreements while still sending the matter to arbitration. They will require that the corporation pay all fees on the grounds that any requirement that an individual pay anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000 in arbitrators’ fees is as good as saying only the wealthiest workers in this country have any rights at all.
Most judges, however, will feel beholden to follow the law as they understand it and some are happy to see matters leave their court room and become someone else’s problem.
These arbitration agreements are even worse than un-American. They are fascist. They are as bad as a “no frills auto insurance policy”, which provides basically no coverage whatsoever for a highly reduced premium. It’s the same as building a house in a swamp or buying a swaybacked horse. No matter how cheap the deal is, if you can make no use of it whatsoever, than it's no deal at all.
“Arbitration” agreements are not “fair.” They are not “equal.” They are not “efficient” methods of delivering “justice.” They are not “alternative dispute resolution.”
These are tough economic times. Corporations are “tightening their belts” across the country. Yet CEOs, board of directors’ members and other executives seem to have record salaries despite the poor economic times. Tax payers seem to be called upon to bail out people who draft their own golden parachutes with the bail out money and then laugh at the rest of us because we were suckered into the bail out. Corporate wrongdoers still get to avoid jail when they should be held personally accountable for anything they do wrong in the name of service to the corporation's ever growing greed.
“Chambers of Commerce,” really just lobbying organizations for corporate greed, keep “spinning” all kinds of nonsense about the need for “tort reform” and whittling away at the system of justice instead of admitting that the system of justice is fine, but that the corporate culture in the country is toxic, un-American and horrid.
Fight arbitration agreements. Don’t sign them. Insist on negotiation. Don’t support candidates that support arbitration agreements. Insist they explain how and why this doesn’t hurt people. Explain to your bosses, co-workers and union representatives that you don’t want them.
Because on the journey to justice, arbitration agreements are land mines.
It's Time to Pierce the Corporate Veil in Discrimination Cases
This post was originally published on March 1, 2010: It's Time to Pierce the Corporate Veil in Discrimination Cases
One of the most frustrating doctrines of law for attorneys representing victims in discrimination and harassment cases is called the "corporate veil," which is a way of colorfully describing the legal "barrier" that exists between a corporation on the one hand and its owners, employees and agents on the other. Put very simply, the CEO of Exxon was not going to be personally liable for the oil spills, no matter how highly positioned in the company the CEO was, no matter how much money the CEO had, and no matter how much the CEO benefited from the practices that lead to the spill. The company was certainly liable, but not him, not unless his independent actions would subject him to other criminal or civil liability. Absent that special scenario, the fact that he was the "titular head" of the company didn't mean anything.
Here's an example closer to home.
Say you hire a contractor who works for a company that has a hand full of contracting employees. Say that they further operate out of a location that the business itself does not own, but that the owner of the company does own, through a third corporation. Say further that the contractor and his company cheat you and charge you great deal of money for either substandard or non-existent work.
You approach a lawyer and you wish to sue. The lawyer investigates the company and initiates the suit, only to find that the company immediately declares bankruptcy. After all, bankruptcy is a pretty easy thing for companies to declare. The company had virtually nothing in terms of real property, because the contracting company you contracted with does not own the business premises, it rents it. The company owns a couple of trucks with very little equity and very little book value, and perhaps some tools.
The owner of the company is loaded, has three homes and two boats, but you cannot get to him, even though he may be the guy that was undertaking the wrongful conduct in the name of his company.
Does that seem fair to you?
It does if you're a corporate type. "It's good for business," those people say, not really caring to explain or even confront the repeated unfairness that this works when individuals are victimized by "the corporate veil," shielding from ultimate responsibility the people who benefited from the wrongful practices by arguing that "the company" undertook them, not the person..
Often, application of the corporate veil can result in judgment proof companies and very rich owners simply declaring bankruptcy and moving on the next corporate shell game. It stinks.
The apologists for this system will continue to tell you that what's good for business is good for the economy, what's good for the economy is good for the country, etc. They might dress it up in terms of patriotism, they might call people who have objections to this system "communists" or "socialists," and who knows what other nonsense. At the end of the day, they simply do not like the idea that individual "fat cats" who benefit from corporate practices can then be made personally responsible for the consequences of those actions.
We see this a lot in small businesses where the tyrannical owners are sexists, homophobes, racists and other types of bigots. They act, and then claim that they did so in the name of the corporation only. So, despite the hateful and bigoted way that they acted, they attempt to separate themselves from individual liability simply because they were doing whatever they did in the name of the corporation at the time.
It's time to end this doctrine. I call on voters to discuss the issue with their representatives. Individuals ought always be responsible for what they do.
At least, that's how I feel.
One of the most frustrating doctrines of law for attorneys representing victims in discrimination and harassment cases is called the "corporate veil," which is a way of colorfully describing the legal "barrier" that exists between a corporation on the one hand and its owners, employees and agents on the other. Put very simply, the CEO of Exxon was not going to be personally liable for the oil spills, no matter how highly positioned in the company the CEO was, no matter how much money the CEO had, and no matter how much the CEO benefited from the practices that lead to the spill. The company was certainly liable, but not him, not unless his independent actions would subject him to other criminal or civil liability. Absent that special scenario, the fact that he was the "titular head" of the company didn't mean anything.
Here's an example closer to home.
Say you hire a contractor who works for a company that has a hand full of contracting employees. Say that they further operate out of a location that the business itself does not own, but that the owner of the company does own, through a third corporation. Say further that the contractor and his company cheat you and charge you great deal of money for either substandard or non-existent work.
You approach a lawyer and you wish to sue. The lawyer investigates the company and initiates the suit, only to find that the company immediately declares bankruptcy. After all, bankruptcy is a pretty easy thing for companies to declare. The company had virtually nothing in terms of real property, because the contracting company you contracted with does not own the business premises, it rents it. The company owns a couple of trucks with very little equity and very little book value, and perhaps some tools.
The owner of the company is loaded, has three homes and two boats, but you cannot get to him, even though he may be the guy that was undertaking the wrongful conduct in the name of his company.
Does that seem fair to you?
It does if you're a corporate type. "It's good for business," those people say, not really caring to explain or even confront the repeated unfairness that this works when individuals are victimized by "the corporate veil," shielding from ultimate responsibility the people who benefited from the wrongful practices by arguing that "the company" undertook them, not the person..
Often, application of the corporate veil can result in judgment proof companies and very rich owners simply declaring bankruptcy and moving on the next corporate shell game. It stinks.
The apologists for this system will continue to tell you that what's good for business is good for the economy, what's good for the economy is good for the country, etc. They might dress it up in terms of patriotism, they might call people who have objections to this system "communists" or "socialists," and who knows what other nonsense. At the end of the day, they simply do not like the idea that individual "fat cats" who benefit from corporate practices can then be made personally responsible for the consequences of those actions.
We see this a lot in small businesses where the tyrannical owners are sexists, homophobes, racists and other types of bigots. They act, and then claim that they did so in the name of the corporation only. So, despite the hateful and bigoted way that they acted, they attempt to separate themselves from individual liability simply because they were doing whatever they did in the name of the corporation at the time.
It's time to end this doctrine. I call on voters to discuss the issue with their representatives. Individuals ought always be responsible for what they do.
At least, that's how I feel.
Kevin Costello named a "Super Lawyer" by Super Lawyer Magazine and Rating Service for 5th Consecutive Year
This post was initially published in November 2009.
Kevin was named a 2010 "Super Lawyer" by the peer-review based rating magazine, which solicits nominations from the legal community and which then submits such nominations to a the bar to finalize selections in different areas of the law. Kevin never asks to be nominated, is not required to pay anything or purchase anything to win, and still confesses, after his fifth win, that he's not even sure who nominates him or how they decided to select him as one of the winners.
The Super Lawyer designation is independent of, and not approved by, the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey, nor by the Bar of the State of New Jersey. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court.
Kevin was named a 2010 "Super Lawyer" by the peer-review based rating magazine, which solicits nominations from the legal community and which then submits such nominations to a the bar to finalize selections in different areas of the law. Kevin never asks to be nominated, is not required to pay anything or purchase anything to win, and still confesses, after his fifth win, that he's not even sure who nominates him or how they decided to select him as one of the winners.
The Super Lawyer designation is independent of, and not approved by, the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey, nor by the Bar of the State of New Jersey. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court.
Press Coverage for Sexual Harassment Suit Against the Gloucester County Improvement Authority
This post was initially published in October 2009.
Both the Gloucester County Times and the Courier Post have reported on a Sexual Harassment suit filed by the firm on behalf of four Authority employees who claim in the public document that they were subjected not only to egregious verbal sexual abuse, but also that, when they complained to upper management, they were told to "live with it" and that if they didn't like it, "there's the gate." Stay tuned for information on the results in future bulletins.
Both the Gloucester County Times and the Courier Post have reported on a Sexual Harassment suit filed by the firm on behalf of four Authority employees who claim in the public document that they were subjected not only to egregious verbal sexual abuse, but also that, when they complained to upper management, they were told to "live with it" and that if they didn't like it, "there's the gate." Stay tuned for information on the results in future bulletins.
The Truth About Who Files Lawsuits
This post was initially published on October 28, 2009: The Truth About Who Files Lawsuits
As an attorney representing the rights of individuals rather than those of corporations, I can tell you that the “Journey to Justice” is slanted against the right of the individual; that it is seeded with landmines placed by corporate, banking, insurance, and vested interests who regard lawyers as an impediment to their abuse of normal citizens.
In your heart, do you really believe that the majority of the lawsuits filed in our Courts are filed by “frivolous” plaintiffs seeking to get something for nothing? Really? Or is that just something that it’s politically “hip” to say, or to agree with, when someone else says it?
In your heart, you know, don’t you, that that is not true? Don’t you ever find it suspicious that the only real conversation that seems to happen about this comes from the people with the most money to spend? Don’t you find it suspicious that the various “chambers of commerce” across the country, and the Federal “chamber of commerce”, are not really chambers discussing commerce, but really PR machines, designed to spend billions of dollars on anti-lawyer, anti-plaintiff and pro-corporate ads?
Please don’t be gullible.
Corporate disputes – that is to say, suits between businesses – dominate dockets throughout the fifty states. The majority of lawsuits filed in this country are filed by corporations and businesses against other corporations and businesses to protect their money, to advance their interests, to protect their patents and trademarks, to claim breaches of contract, fraud, defamation and other forms of relief, and, most importantly, to seek damages. How ironic it is that these very same interests are willing to take away your right, to claim damages, but to preserve their own?
Have you ever heard about “corporate tort reform”? Of course not. Why in the world would the corporations with the power to change the playing field want to tilt it against themselves? They're not fools.
They just assume you are.
The United States Supreme Court begins its October 5, 2009 term with a business heavy case load. More than half of the forty-five cases set for the new term focus on business interests and business rights. There are no plaintiff’s employment cases and no plaintiff’s environmental disputes which have been granted review.
On the other hand, there are plenty of cases on patent infringement, anti-trust law and white-collar crime matters on the docket.
So ask yourself the following question. As easy as it is to agree with the nonsense at the parties and barbeques and on TV, nonsense which has been spoon-fed to you by banking, insurance and corporate interests and their powerful PR machines masquerading as “neutral” statistics and news, do you really think, based upon the cases that are going before the Supreme Court, that it’s plaintiffs and their claims for damages which are a problem in our courts?
Be honest.
In addition to being honest, be smart and be brave. When people tell you that “lawyers” and “plaintiffs” and “claims for damages” are a “problem”, ask them for statistics. Don’t let them get away with quoting you Rush Limbaugh’s statistics, or statistics from the Federal Chamber of Commerce. Ask for neutral statistics. Ask them how many plaintiffs cases for individuals are filed in this country, as opposed to cases filed by corporations against other corporations, and businesses against other businesses. Ask them to tell you how many punitive damages verdicts there really are, versus the number the right tells you there are.
The truth will surprise you. The corporations in this country have long been gaining control over our lives; the Court and the politicians who appoint to it are the gem in their crown. Control justice, and you control America.
Ask yourself when you were a kid how many ads you saw for corporations that weren’t trying to sell a product in particular, they were just trying to sell their image? That’s a recent phenomenon, and it’s really only been around for the last twenty five or thirty years. Ask yourselves why they do that. Why would they spend the money to simply remind you that they are there, and that they are wonderful people?
I’m not trying to sound like a conspiracy nut. I’m simply telling you that corporations are selfish. They are soulless. They don’t care, because they are not designed to care. They are designed to make money. The people who run those corporations are relieved of individual responsibility for what they do in the name of the corporate quest for dollars. Don’t trust a word that a corporation tells you, and certainly don’t trust what their paid “hacks” tell you. Just look at the statistics. The real statistics, like the caseload before the Supreme Court above.
Then ask yourselves where the real problem is. Is it with lawyers, not spending billions on PR, but quietly going about trying to help people on an increasingly tilted playing field? Or is it the unfettered and unholy access that corporations have to our legislators and now, to our courts through the appointment of judges by those legislators?
I don’t like it, and neither should you.
As an attorney representing the rights of individuals rather than those of corporations, I can tell you that the “Journey to Justice” is slanted against the right of the individual; that it is seeded with landmines placed by corporate, banking, insurance, and vested interests who regard lawyers as an impediment to their abuse of normal citizens.
In your heart, do you really believe that the majority of the lawsuits filed in our Courts are filed by “frivolous” plaintiffs seeking to get something for nothing? Really? Or is that just something that it’s politically “hip” to say, or to agree with, when someone else says it?
In your heart, you know, don’t you, that that is not true? Don’t you ever find it suspicious that the only real conversation that seems to happen about this comes from the people with the most money to spend? Don’t you find it suspicious that the various “chambers of commerce” across the country, and the Federal “chamber of commerce”, are not really chambers discussing commerce, but really PR machines, designed to spend billions of dollars on anti-lawyer, anti-plaintiff and pro-corporate ads?
Please don’t be gullible.
Corporate disputes – that is to say, suits between businesses – dominate dockets throughout the fifty states. The majority of lawsuits filed in this country are filed by corporations and businesses against other corporations and businesses to protect their money, to advance their interests, to protect their patents and trademarks, to claim breaches of contract, fraud, defamation and other forms of relief, and, most importantly, to seek damages. How ironic it is that these very same interests are willing to take away your right, to claim damages, but to preserve their own?
Have you ever heard about “corporate tort reform”? Of course not. Why in the world would the corporations with the power to change the playing field want to tilt it against themselves? They're not fools.
They just assume you are.
The United States Supreme Court begins its October 5, 2009 term with a business heavy case load. More than half of the forty-five cases set for the new term focus on business interests and business rights. There are no plaintiff’s employment cases and no plaintiff’s environmental disputes which have been granted review.
On the other hand, there are plenty of cases on patent infringement, anti-trust law and white-collar crime matters on the docket.
So ask yourself the following question. As easy as it is to agree with the nonsense at the parties and barbeques and on TV, nonsense which has been spoon-fed to you by banking, insurance and corporate interests and their powerful PR machines masquerading as “neutral” statistics and news, do you really think, based upon the cases that are going before the Supreme Court, that it’s plaintiffs and their claims for damages which are a problem in our courts?
Be honest.
In addition to being honest, be smart and be brave. When people tell you that “lawyers” and “plaintiffs” and “claims for damages” are a “problem”, ask them for statistics. Don’t let them get away with quoting you Rush Limbaugh’s statistics, or statistics from the Federal Chamber of Commerce. Ask for neutral statistics. Ask them how many plaintiffs cases for individuals are filed in this country, as opposed to cases filed by corporations against other corporations, and businesses against other businesses. Ask them to tell you how many punitive damages verdicts there really are, versus the number the right tells you there are.
The truth will surprise you. The corporations in this country have long been gaining control over our lives; the Court and the politicians who appoint to it are the gem in their crown. Control justice, and you control America.
Ask yourself when you were a kid how many ads you saw for corporations that weren’t trying to sell a product in particular, they were just trying to sell their image? That’s a recent phenomenon, and it’s really only been around for the last twenty five or thirty years. Ask yourselves why they do that. Why would they spend the money to simply remind you that they are there, and that they are wonderful people?
I’m not trying to sound like a conspiracy nut. I’m simply telling you that corporations are selfish. They are soulless. They don’t care, because they are not designed to care. They are designed to make money. The people who run those corporations are relieved of individual responsibility for what they do in the name of the corporate quest for dollars. Don’t trust a word that a corporation tells you, and certainly don’t trust what their paid “hacks” tell you. Just look at the statistics. The real statistics, like the caseload before the Supreme Court above.
Then ask yourselves where the real problem is. Is it with lawyers, not spending billions on PR, but quietly going about trying to help people on an increasingly tilted playing field? Or is it the unfettered and unholy access that corporations have to our legislators and now, to our courts through the appointment of judges by those legislators?
I don’t like it, and neither should you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
