|
euphronius posted:If it took a team of 5 plaintiff attorneys five years to get that 20,000,000 that is only 800,000 attorney/year which - considering the risk they get nothing - is reasonable.  You and I have very different definitions of the word "reasonable." And "only."
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Of course, 90% of the stuff that's done by class action should instead be done by a relevant regulatory agency, but that's what 20 years of gutting regulatory agencies gets you. Very well said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:
Each "attorney" is a practice that includes things like rent and other employees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Oh yeah. No doubt a functional gov would be better. A functional gov? What's that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
uninterrupted fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Sep 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
BobTheJanitor posted:Still sets a terrible precedent, since any sane person would think the standard would be that 'stuff that you have to do to not get fired' should be compensated. In the Amazon case, surely the employees were free to not go through the security screening, as it wasn't a necessary job function, but I'm sure any employee that refused would be fired immediately. But since it was a unanimous decision, I'm sure it was a case where the law as-written was crystal clear, and asking the SC to do anything else really would have been legislation from the bench. Still a lovely, lovely result, though. The standard is if it's safety critical or done for efficiency of your job, which is pretty much the precedent that's been used for the last 70 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Each "attorney" is a practice that includes things like rent and other employees. Attorneys are people, my friend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Corporations I get but attorneys? That's a bridge too far imho
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:
That's not net income to the attorney.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That's not net income to the attorney. Yeah one would assume they just get their billable with the firm keeping the rest, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah one would assume they just get their billable with the firm keeping the rest, right? Class action plaintiff firms are usually small partnerships (3-10 partners and maybe another 1-5 associates on staff). The partners would split the end of year profit and the associates get a salary and usually a bonus. The partners front the cost of doing business when no fees are coming in (most of the time).
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Sorry, but coupon settlements and disclosure settlements (in securities class-actions) aren't wins for the class and shouldn't be compensated as one. Of course, 90% of the stuff that's done by class action should instead be done by a relevant regulatory agency, but that's what 20 years of gutting regulatory agencies gets you. The only thing we hate more in Texas than government regulation is Lawyers! When has government regulation ever done a danged good thing for the people?!?! (takes drag of cigarette, gets in car built before seatbelts were required, drives off to asbestos manufacturing plant)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:The standard is if it's safety critical or done for efficiency of your job, which is pretty much the precedent that's been used for the last 70 years. I understand what the standard is. I'm saying that's a terrible standard and that the mythical functioning government would legislate that standard out of existence. The standard as-is gives Amazon no incentive to have efficient security screenings. They can have one single old guy doing slow pat-downs for a line of 50 employees who all come off-shift at the same time, making them wait for four hours unpaid before they can leave the office. Legally, there's nothing wrong with this. It's insane, but perfectly legal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
It'd seriously be very nice if we had government agencies regulating things effectively, but in the absence, private class firms at least do something. In 2002 my roommate got 150 bucks in coupons ($1 off every $10 spent) for her grocery store employer. She gave them all to me. It was then that I decided to become a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Any legal minds have an idea of how the nun birth control case could go? And what the result would be in the case of a 4-4 split?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Any legal minds have an idea of how the nun birth control case could go? And what the result would be in the case of a 4-4 split? There is no way to get a majority striking down the mandate. All four liberal justices dissented (fairly vehemently) from the Hobby Lobby case that underlies this challenge. That means the worst-case scenario is a 4-4 split, where any business in the 8th Circuit can just do, uh, whatever it is they're asking the court to let them do to get out of the mandate, and every sane circuit requires them to fill out the one-page form. Once Scalia's replacement takes his seat they immediately take a case to resolve the circuit split. The more likely scenario is Kennedy defects as he considers promoting access to birth control a compelling governmental interest (which is something the claimants are trying to deny) and that filling out a drat one-page form is as minor a burden as you can get, and the decision is 5-3 telling the nuns to go pound sand and fill out the loving form.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Oh yeah. No doubt a functional gov would be better. We don't need any of that regulatin' bureaucrat stuff. Class actions are free market, entrepeneurial regulation. Except for the class part. Let's get rid of that and have every single consumer file their own individual lawsuit for $150 in damages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:We don't need any of that regulatin' bureaucrat stuff. Class actions are free market, entrepeneurial regulation. Except for the class part. Let's get rid of that and have every single consumer file their own individual lawsuit for $150 in damages. oh no, that would be unreasonable because that would be public and in front of an impartial judge let's have every single customer file their own arbitration for $150 in damages
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Someone better have a loving mandatory arbitration test case on loving standby for as soon as the Senate confirms anyone to the left Kennedy. That whole concept enrages me like few others other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:A functional gov? What's that? As opposed to a procedural government?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:As opposed to a procedural government? As opposed to objectivist oriented.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Sorry, but coupon settlements and disclosure settlements (in securities class-actions) aren't wins for the class and shouldn't be compensated as one. Of course, 90% of the stuff that's done by class action should instead be done by a relevant regulatory agency, but that's what 20 years of gutting regulatory agencies gets you. Yeah this Rygar201 posted:Someone better have a loving mandatory arbitration test case on loving standby for as soon as the Senate confirms anyone to the left Kennedy. That whole concept enrages me like few others other. this too I want to see arbitration gutted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:As opposed to objectivist oriented. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
BobTheJanitor posted:I understand what the standard is. I'm saying that's a terrible standard and that the mythical functioning government would legislate that standard out of existence. The standard as-is gives Amazon no incentive to have efficient security screenings. They can have one single old guy doing slow pat-downs for a line of 50 employees who all come off-shift at the same time, making them wait for four hours unpaid before they can leave the office. Legally, there's nothing wrong with this. It's insane, but perfectly legal. If it gets to that point, it might be quicker to use the fire exit and let the police pat you down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Oral argument transcript for Zubik v. Burwell (Little Sisters of the Poor contraceptive case) is up. Includes a long discussion about the difference between objecting and objecting to objecting. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-1418_1bn2.pdf Kennedy doesn't appear to be very favorable towards the government here. 4-4 seems likely unless there's a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
North Carolina's General Assembly House just passed a bill that (if it makes it to law, which looks likely) rolls back and bans any future anti-discrimination laws/ordinances in the state. This is rolled in with a boilerplate standard bathroom bill's language. IANAL (pun intended), but at least one of these things flies directly in the face of my understanding of both the constitutional and legal (federal) protections afforded to LGBT populations as a quasi-suspect class. My question is: Is there some element I'm missing here that would prevent a challenge to anti-trans* [discriminatory] bathroom laws from going forwards to the SCOTUS? Assuming a challenge is mounted, what, if anything, could be said about the potential results? I have a hard time reading history any sensible way that frames LGBT, and especially Trans, people as anything but a historically discriminated population in need of general protections and the protection of enhanced scrutiny. The argument I've always heard is that LGBT people are theoretically protected by protections against discrimination on the basis of sex, as in a bygone day I might have been prevented from marrying a man because I am a man, the discriminatory section underlined. In my still-not-a-lawyer opinion, explicitly including sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes has a lot of merit and would go a long way towards helping people/protecting vulnerable populations/upholding the constitution/savin' 'murica/being not lovely humans. EDIT: Then again, this is from a state where some people still refer to the Civil War as "the War of Northern Aggression", so "reading", "history", "constitution", and "helping people [who aren't you]" are kind of up in the air. CaPensiPraxis fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
CaPensiPraxis posted:North Carolina's General Assembly House just passed a bill that (if it makes it to law, which looks likely) rolls back and bans any future anti-discrimination laws/ordinances in the state. This is rolled in with a boilerplate standard bathroom bill's language. IANAL (pun intended), but at least one of these things flies directly in the face of my understanding of both the constitutional and legal (federal) protections afforded to LGBT populations as a quasi-suspect class. Are you missing a word in here or something? Repealing all anti-discrimination laws seems, uh, extreme even for North Carolina. Also, LGBT populations aren't a quasi-suspect class as the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
"LGBT" isn't useful as a legal category; gender identity, biological/physical/your preferred term here and sexual orientation are almost certainly going to be treated as separate classifications that will likely require separate caselaw, even if the same standard is ultimately determined. The people discriminating on the basis of each of them will have different rationales and laws at issue, after all, even if it's the same people writing the discriminatory laws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Are you missing a word in here or something? Repealing all anti-discrimination laws seems, uh, extreme even for North Carolina. And anyways even if South Carolina had no anti discrimination laws and did not allow localities to pass such laws federal law would still apply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Are you missing a word in here or something? Repealing all anti-discrimination laws seems, uh, extreme even for North Carolina. It's blocking city-level ordinances like allowing a trans person to use a bathroom for the gender they identify with. It's not a state-wide anti-discrimination law reversal. Or wasn't last time I read up on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's blocking city-level ordinances like allowing a trans person to use a bathroom for the gender they identify with. It's not a state-wide anti-discrimination law reversal. Or wasn't last time I read up on it. From the news articles I've seen, it looks like it bans municipalities from creating their own anti-discrimination laws relating to LGBT in addition to the bathroom stuff. E.g. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nc-lawmakers-return-address-transgender-bathroom-measure-37861330 It'd be kind of a weird thing to declare unconstitutional. The 14th empowers the feds to pass anti-discrimination laws, but AFAIK the courts haven't interpreted it to require states to pass their own anti-discrimination laws. I could be completely wrong on this though. esquilax fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Are you missing a word in here or something? Repealing all anti-discrimination laws seems, uh, extreme even for North Carolina. Absolutely not missing a word. All. It was brought up that this technically could gut preferential treatment for veterans, but that was handwaved away. Give me a second and I can dig up the exact text. The summary provided by the committee co-council says that the bill supercedes, preempts, and prohibits all other laws in their jurisdiction pertaining to discrimination. All of this in... everything. In the provision of goods, services, or accommodations as well as disccriminatory practices in employment. How could you have read up on the bill? The text of the bill was kept tightly under wraps until today, the day it was passed in the house after 3 hours of debate and (reportedly) 5 minutes of review/reading time in committee. It specifically defines the ways that a person's sex shall be determined and requires public agencies to maintain single sex multiple occupancy bathrooms using those criteria. My understanding was that sexual orientation at least has been ruled on using quasi-suspect scrutiny (by the Second Circuit), supported by the SCOTUS upholding the lower court's findings. It's within the power of the state to reserve the power to make anti-discrimination rulings from local governments, but the bathroom bill portion itself certainly strikes me as burdening trans* people with no reasonable state interest. CaPensiPraxis fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
This has been going on since 2011, with Tenessee, Texas, and Arkansas (I think) passing their own laws. https://www.texasobserver.org/legislative-proposal-nullify-lgbt-nondiscrimination-laws/ The TN example was held up due to the plaintiffs not having standing. Seems those laws have survived a lot of challenges, but I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Is it HB2? This is what ThinkProgress is linking to - http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v0.pdfquote:(c) The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement upon an employer pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment, except such regulations applicable to personnel employed by that body that are not otherwise in conflict with State law." and quote:(b) The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation. is the language you're talking about right? Looks like it only applies to employment and public accommodation? quote:My understanding was that sexual orientation at least has been ruled on using quasi-suspect scrutiny (by the Second Circuit), supported by the SCOTUS upholding the lower court's findings. It's within the power of the state to reserve the power to make anti-discrimination rulings from local governments, but the bathroom bill portion itself certainly strikes me as burdening trans* people with no reasonable state interest. EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Yeah this I got a guy to the right of Attila the Hun to oppose arbitration by noting that it's how Muslims can take civil disputes (especially divorce and inheritance) to a religious court. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Oh, good. Three of the Justices (who spoke up) apparently don't know how health insurance works. I should probably read the transcript to see just how bad this is, but this already sounds like a really severe disconnection from reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Oh, good. Three of the Justices (who spoke up) apparently don't know how health insurance works. The article is pretty biased, the Roberts exchange is obviously him playing dumb to get to his gotcha. quote:Roberts: They're on the exchanges, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The article is pretty biased, the Roberts exchange is obviously him playing dumb to get to his gotcha. It is admittedly both a good and funny line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Balls and strikes, folks
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Is it HB2? This is what ThinkProgress is linking to - http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v0.pdf That isn't the specific language, no, but that is the header of the relevant sections, yes. Not one that outweighs the interest in protecting citizens from well cited and endemic violence using a bathroom that does not conform to their gender presentation, no. Especially when nationwide experts dedicated to protecting people from sexual assault agree that the state is acting to protect people from an issue that does not exist. The case you're talking about is one in which a sex offender who is already not protected against the law does an unlawful thing that will continue to be against the law if people with vaginas are allowed into "men's rooms" etc. You mean 'not letting women be spied on / molested / raped by men pretending to be transwomen'? The same thing that stops them from being spied on etc. by other cisgendered women, or in the general case of bad person x doing bad thing y to innocent person z - the existing laws against sexual predation. What is it about this special case of sexual assault perpetrated by a trans person or 'fake trans person' that requires a legislature to go out of their way to create legislation for? I mean, I'm pretty sure I know what it is, I'm just curious if there is a reasonable and not-'ewwwwwww' cover reason. SCOTUS, Romer vs Evans posted:[I]f a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. Again, I might be dramatically misconstruing the details here being both not-a-lawyer and a-newer-SCOTUS-follower, but it seems to me that the precedent here is that a law concerning something like sexual orientation or gender identity shall be upheld if it a) does not burden a fundamental right, b) does not target a suspect class, and c) comes to some legitimate end. The purported legitimate end of bathroom bills is to protect people (women and girls) from sexual predators, in a way that the existing laws covering sexual assault are not equipped to do... somehow. To me, the layperson, that seems like a perfectly valid angle of attack, albeit perhaps not the most satisfying. As pointed out, more subtle means will be used to sidestep the specific provisions deemed untenable in this particular kind of bill. In the NC version, changing the gender marker on your birth certificate provides a method for a trans person to sidestep the new restrictions. However, other laws (some quite recent) have made it increasingly difficult and punishing to do that, including potentially interfering with the right to vote through new voting restrictions. While the prevention of municipal governments from issuing local ordinances to prevent discrimination is undeniably within the bounds of the GA's prerogative, it's so drat hypocritical to champion local governmental rights to enshrine discrimination at the polls etc. while turning around and legislating to prevent the same strategy being used against you, damning it as unamerican. I see now that the issue of sexual orientation as a suspect class in its own right has come up a few times, but has never been directly questioned and has been avoidedpunted by the SCOTUS. Could some kind of proof and demonstration of the harms caused to people de facto prevented from using a safe and otherwise available bathroom (a right guaranteed by the federal government), directly raising the question of suspect classification, prompt the SCOTUS to expand the list of suspect classifications? In other words, is there judicial hope at the end of this bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:31
|
|