OT - Giving Notice Redux

shame on you!

Joe Piotrowski - Chicago Burb's

>trying to bring common sense into a world where accountability and personal responsibility and shunned. you can kiss you political career good bye!

pretty soon you won't be able to call it shaker furniture, unless you are a shaker!

I have been waiting for that law suit for a long time ;)

Not dumb

Hank Knight in SC

>Larry, your question is not dumb, I get asked the same question all the time. Unfortunately, the answer is that the courts won't punish plaintiffs or lawyers for bringing these lawsuits. The federal discrimination laws are often referred to as "social legislation." They are designed to encourage people to sue to end systemic discrimination in our society. If courts allowed employers to counter sue, the risk that an employee might lose big if he/she brings an unsuccessful discrimination lawsuit would "chill" the interest in bringing these cases generally - thus defeating the purpose for which they were intended. In some cases an employer will get punished for bringing a counter suit - the courts view it as unlawful "retaliation" against the employee for suing the company.

That's the technical answer. The real answer is that courts simply won't award damages to a corporation against an individual plaintiff or his/her attorney. "It just ain't right." I had a case several years ago in which a plaintiff sued my client under the Family and Medical Leave Act because the company would not approve a 120 day leave of absence for the employee to visit her family witch doctor in the Philippines. The request was denied because she refused to produce a medical certificate stating that the visit was "medically necessary." Nevertheless, the Company approved a 60 day "personal leave" for her that was available under company policy. I won the case and moved for sanctions on the grounds that the case was frivolous. The court agreed with me, but refused to award any damages against the plaintiff or her attorney (who didn't even attend the hearing on my motion). Technically, a defendant is entitled to sanctions (damages) against a plaintiff and/or his/her attorney for bringing a frivolous lawsuit - one that has no basis in fact or law. The court ruled that the case against my client was truly frivolous, but refused to award damages even though my client had spent many thousands of dollars getting the case dismissed - a case that should never have been brought in the first place. The case taught me that is futile for a defendant corporation to try to get damages against an individual plaintiff. It's an expensive waste of time.

Re: Not dumb, but another thought comes to mind.

Carol from AZ

>How about monetary sanctions against the attorney who took the case, who should have known better?

Too radical?

Re: Not dumb, but another thought comes to mind.

Hank Knight from SC

>Carol,

That's what is supposed to happen - the lawyer should pay. More often than not, a plaintiff has no idea whether they have a good case. It is the lawyer's job - and ethical responsibility - to determine whether a claim is valid under the law. The rules provide for monitary sanctions against either - or both - the party and the attorney for bringing a frivolous claim, in the court's discretion. More often than not it is the attorney who should be sanctioned for pursuing a frivolous case. But the courts just won't do it. In the case I spoke about above, I made an appointment with the plaintiff's lawyer early in the case, drove to Charleston, met with him and told him his case had no merit and that, if he pursued it, I would ask the court to sanction him for filing a frivolous lawsuit. It's not like he didn't know - but when the courts don't put any teeth in the rules, why should he care? It's not his money that was spent defending his frivolous case.

I'll get off my soap box now. As you can see, this is something of a sore spot with me. I defend stupid cases all the time an I feel bad for my clients' having to pay for them. It's crazy.

Hank