PICK YOUR BATTLES WISELY.
May 11, 2006 9:22 AM Subscribe
Just when you thought we'd run out of things to sue over. A man who was denied a red nylon tote bag during a Mother's Day promotion at an Angels baseball game has filed a sex and age discrimination lawsuit against the team.
That just sounds like someone looking for a free ride....
posted by lrkuperman at 9:33 AM on May 11, 2006
posted by lrkuperman at 9:33 AM on May 11, 2006
Did he want to give it to his mom or sell it on ebay? And really, who puts things in these terms:
"They claimed they didn't have any more bags, but my client said there was a mountain of bags stacked so high a show dog couldn't have jumped over them"
Idiot.
posted by Biblio at 9:35 AM on May 11, 2006
"They claimed they didn't have any more bags, but my client said there was a mountain of bags stacked so high a show dog couldn't have jumped over them"
Idiot.
posted by Biblio at 9:35 AM on May 11, 2006
We will never run out over which a lawsuit will be broughten.
posted by clearlynuts at 9:37 AM on May 11, 2006
posted by clearlynuts at 9:37 AM on May 11, 2006
Uh, put a "things" somewhere in that comment. Yeesh.
posted by clearlynuts at 9:38 AM on May 11, 2006
posted by clearlynuts at 9:38 AM on May 11, 2006
Things have become so bad in Iraq that a show dog couldn't even help us now.
posted by mullacc at 10:11 AM on May 11, 2006
posted by mullacc at 10:11 AM on May 11, 2006
My hair is so long even a show dog couldn't cut it.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:14 AM on May 11, 2006
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:14 AM on May 11, 2006
Some background on Alfred Rava, who seems to make his living suing places that have ladies nights (also, which has a comment from him)
If you're wondering why a tacky 50 cent tote bag = $4,000: "Penalties for violating the law include the assessment of mandatory-minimum statutory damages of $4,000 per violation and the award of attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs."
posted by milkrate at 10:14 AM on May 11, 2006
If you're wondering why a tacky 50 cent tote bag = $4,000: "Penalties for violating the law include the assessment of mandatory-minimum statutory damages of $4,000 per violation and the award of attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs."
posted by milkrate at 10:14 AM on May 11, 2006
I actually was wondering how a tote bag could be worth so much. I mean one without a small "D&G" logo on it somewhere.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:17 AM on May 11, 2006
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:17 AM on May 11, 2006
I don't suppose ass-hat sent back the 4 free totes the team sent him after the little bitch wrote a letter crying about the incident?
oh sorry, that was insensitive.
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:37 AM on May 11, 2006
oh sorry, that was insensitive.
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:37 AM on May 11, 2006
Looks like the Angels' best bet is to take it to court and have it pronounced frivolous.
That said, I've always wondered about the legitimacy of promotions like this: so it's Mother's Day, and all mothers get a free bag. What if come Black History Month, all black people get a discount? Or Columbus day, and all Spaniards get in for free? That kind of thing. At what point does it stop being "a deal" and start being real discrimination?
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 10:38 AM on May 11, 2006
That said, I've always wondered about the legitimacy of promotions like this: so it's Mother's Day, and all mothers get a free bag. What if come Black History Month, all black people get a discount? Or Columbus day, and all Spaniards get in for free? That kind of thing. At what point does it stop being "a deal" and start being real discrimination?
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 10:38 AM on May 11, 2006
He must have no one in his life that makes him feel like an idiot for doing this.
posted by airguitar at 10:38 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by airguitar at 10:38 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]
so it's Mother's Day, and all mothers get a free bag. - BlackLeotardFront
Well they didn't even make it that all Mothers could get a free bag. It was all females over 18 could (see the "promotion" link).
posted by raedyn at 10:48 AM on May 11, 2006
Well they didn't even make it that all Mothers could get a free bag. It was all females over 18 could (see the "promotion" link).
posted by raedyn at 10:48 AM on May 11, 2006
I hate to side with the Asshat, but If they did a promotion where only adult men could get a prize don't you think some feminist would sue?
I think he's right.
posted by Megafly at 11:06 AM on May 11, 2006
I think he's right.
posted by Megafly at 11:06 AM on May 11, 2006
I bet he is suing angels because he couldn't find a lawyer who could represent him in a suit against devils. Conflicts of interest and all.
I'll be here all week.
posted by srboisvert at 11:09 AM on May 11, 2006
I'll be here all week.
posted by srboisvert at 11:09 AM on May 11, 2006
"I think he's right."
There's a difference between being "right" and finding grounds for a lawsuit.
But then again, Any thing that sucks the life out of corporate sports franchises is fine by me.
posted by 2sheets at 11:12 AM on May 11, 2006
There's a difference between being "right" and finding grounds for a lawsuit.
But then again, Any thing that sucks the life out of corporate sports franchises is fine by me.
posted by 2sheets at 11:12 AM on May 11, 2006
Would it be an issue if the promotion was actually restricted to Mothers only, rather than adult women?
posted by raedyn at 11:28 AM on May 11, 2006
posted by raedyn at 11:28 AM on May 11, 2006
yes, but it would be cheaper. there were only 7 or 8 people in frank zappa's band.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:46 AM on May 11, 2006
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:46 AM on May 11, 2006
At what point does it stop being "a deal" and start being real discrimination?
When a judge legitimizes some frivolous, foolish lawsuit.
Let's grant his argument and agree that it was discrimination. Too many people believe that, simply because something violates a law, it should be brought before a judge (and that someone deserves a hefty check).
posted by cribcage at 12:00 PM on May 11, 2006
When a judge legitimizes some frivolous, foolish lawsuit.
Let's grant his argument and agree that it was discrimination. Too many people believe that, simply because something violates a law, it should be brought before a judge (and that someone deserves a hefty check).
posted by cribcage at 12:00 PM on May 11, 2006
Or Columbus day, and all Spaniards get in for free?
wha ?
posted by banshee at 1:27 PM on May 11, 2006
wha ?
posted by banshee at 1:27 PM on May 11, 2006
I hate to side with the Asshat, but If they did a promotion where only adult men could get a prize don't you think some feminist would sue?
Seeing as how there is a Father's Day next month, I think that the feminist who would sue is a raging idiot who needs to find better causes.
I'm going to sue Pizza Hut for not giving me the free buffet for kids on Tuesday nights. Age discrimination!
posted by gatorae at 1:42 PM on May 11, 2006
Seeing as how there is a Father's Day next month, I think that the feminist who would sue is a raging idiot who needs to find better causes.
I'm going to sue Pizza Hut for not giving me the free buffet for kids on Tuesday nights. Age discrimination!
posted by gatorae at 1:42 PM on May 11, 2006
There have to be some established laws here. I can't imagine he has a real case.
How does this differ from senior-citizen discounts? Or Ladies' Night?
posted by mrgrimm at 2:15 PM on May 11, 2006
How does this differ from senior-citizen discounts? Or Ladies' Night?
posted by mrgrimm at 2:15 PM on May 11, 2006
mrgrimm - Did you read milkrate's link which says this guy's lawyer has sucecssfully faught ladies night a number of times before?
posted by raedyn at 2:22 PM on May 11, 2006
posted by raedyn at 2:22 PM on May 11, 2006
Let's all chip in for a Metafilter membership for poor tote-less Michael Cohn and see if a nice pile on wouldn't teach him some practical psychology.
posted by Cranberry at 2:38 PM on May 11, 2006
posted by Cranberry at 2:38 PM on May 11, 2006
Too many people believe that, simply because something violates a law, it should be brought before a judge
What do you propose, summary hanging in the public square? The stockade? Isn't that what judges are there for? Or are you arguing that the laws should be selectively enforced? If so, you've got a lot more faith in the enforcers than I do.
This is a stupid case. The case is possible because Rava's taking advantage of a stupid law. Maybe if more people acted like our laws mean what they say, we'd have better laws.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:00 PM on May 11, 2006
What do you propose, summary hanging in the public square? The stockade? Isn't that what judges are there for? Or are you arguing that the laws should be selectively enforced? If so, you've got a lot more faith in the enforcers than I do.
This is a stupid case. The case is possible because Rava's taking advantage of a stupid law. Maybe if more people acted like our laws mean what they say, we'd have better laws.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:00 PM on May 11, 2006
IshmaelGraves, I think your last sentence is exactly the point cribcage was making, i.e., just because one can sue doesn't mean one should.
In any event, a jury would award this guy bupkus.
posted by brain_drain at 5:22 PM on May 11, 2006
In any event, a jury would award this guy bupkus.
posted by brain_drain at 5:22 PM on May 11, 2006
This case is possible because Rava's a stupid man taking advantage of a law that is, stupidly, needed. If men as stupid/sexist as Rava didn't exist, we wouldn't need the law.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:07 PM on May 11, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 6:07 PM on May 11, 2006
What do you propose, summary hanging in the public square? The stockade?
How about, LETTING IT GO, for fuck's sake.
Since my point was apparently too subtle for the peanut gallery, I'll try again: Not every problem requires a solution. We have finite resources, and sometimes you say, "It's a goddamn tote bag, it really isn't worth bothering a judge."
OMYGOD A LAW WAS BROKEN WE NEED JUSTICE!!!!!!
Relax. Have a sandwich.
posted by cribcage at 7:20 PM on May 11, 2006
How about, LETTING IT GO, for fuck's sake.
Since my point was apparently too subtle for the peanut gallery, I'll try again: Not every problem requires a solution. We have finite resources, and sometimes you say, "It's a goddamn tote bag, it really isn't worth bothering a judge."
OMYGOD A LAW WAS BROKEN WE NEED JUSTICE!!!!!!
Relax. Have a sandwich.
posted by cribcage at 7:20 PM on May 11, 2006
All right, I'm letting it go. But Not The Show Dog Line! NO WAY AM I LETTING THE SHOW DOG LINE GO!
My sandwich is so big a show dog could not jump over it.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:32 PM on May 11, 2006
My sandwich is so big a show dog could not jump over it.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:32 PM on May 11, 2006
ytmnsd!
posted by brain_drain at 10:14 PM on May 11, 2006
posted by brain_drain at 10:14 PM on May 11, 2006
Law is law. Some laws are stupid. Some people get their panties in a bunch over stupid things. Trouble is, law is the best way we've found to handle civilization.
Of course, America is full of asshats spreading tales, true and false, designed to teach folks that it is not law by which we must function, but devine writ and revelation.
The guy is another kind of asshat. No big deal. Let him have his $4k, it is a small price to pay to promote the writ of law over the insane bablings of a bunch of deluded wackos.
Don't all into the little traps that make rational folks push the agenda of the real wackos.
posted by Goofyy at 2:05 AM on May 12, 2006
Of course, America is full of asshats spreading tales, true and false, designed to teach folks that it is not law by which we must function, but devine writ and revelation.
The guy is another kind of asshat. No big deal. Let him have his $4k, it is a small price to pay to promote the writ of law over the insane bablings of a bunch of deluded wackos.
Don't all into the little traps that make rational folks push the agenda of the real wackos.
posted by Goofyy at 2:05 AM on May 12, 2006
This is exactly the sort of lawsuit that the one-dollar damage award was conceived for. Or dismissed as moot because he got his bags. There are too many real instances of discrimination around to waste too much time on this nonsense. And paying him off with any significant amount of money only encourages this sort of asshattery.
posted by TedW at 7:49 AM on May 12, 2006
posted by TedW at 7:49 AM on May 12, 2006
Trouble is, law is the best way we've found to handle civilization.
The trouble is that you can't distinguish between someone saying that screwdrivers can't fix every problem and someone saying that screwdrivers suck. And then you bring religion into the discussion, from out of the fucking blue. Y'know who weasels their pet subjects into unrelated discussions so they can score a few sucker punches? Bigots.
Forget the tote bag. Try a different hypothetical. After 20 years of marriage, a couple divorces amicably. They remain friends, and the husband has no problem paying alimony to his ex-wife. Then his financial circumstances change — he gets fired, he gets sick, whatever — and he can no longer afford to pay alimony.
They're adults. They get along with each other. There's absolutely no reason why these two reasonable people shouldn't settle the issue themselves — but in your world, because the original alimony was court-ordered, they have to run back into court (and pay fees) to have a judge "approve" their new agreement.
That's socialism. It's Big Brother. And it's fucking retarded. Just because a law is broken, doesn't mean that we need to go to court. "But....the alternative is to raise a mob and stone the lawbreaker!" No. False dichotomy. Just because a law is broken, doesn't mean we need to do anything at all. Remember that next time you're driving 38 in a 35. "But...it begins with letting the Angels give tote bags to women, and pretty soon we have ANARCHY!!!!!!" Retarded.
posted by cribcage at 9:48 AM on May 12, 2006
The trouble is that you can't distinguish between someone saying that screwdrivers can't fix every problem and someone saying that screwdrivers suck. And then you bring religion into the discussion, from out of the fucking blue. Y'know who weasels their pet subjects into unrelated discussions so they can score a few sucker punches? Bigots.
Forget the tote bag. Try a different hypothetical. After 20 years of marriage, a couple divorces amicably. They remain friends, and the husband has no problem paying alimony to his ex-wife. Then his financial circumstances change — he gets fired, he gets sick, whatever — and he can no longer afford to pay alimony.
They're adults. They get along with each other. There's absolutely no reason why these two reasonable people shouldn't settle the issue themselves — but in your world, because the original alimony was court-ordered, they have to run back into court (and pay fees) to have a judge "approve" their new agreement.
That's socialism. It's Big Brother. And it's fucking retarded. Just because a law is broken, doesn't mean that we need to go to court. "But....the alternative is to raise a mob and stone the lawbreaker!" No. False dichotomy. Just because a law is broken, doesn't mean we need to do anything at all. Remember that next time you're driving 38 in a 35. "But...it begins with letting the Angels give tote bags to women, and pretty soon we have ANARCHY!!!!!!" Retarded.
posted by cribcage at 9:48 AM on May 12, 2006
« Older Missing man’s pack rescues lost hikers | Seeing is believing Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Huh?
posted by daveleck at 9:33 AM on May 11, 2006