Here’s one thing that has puzzled me about the “settlement or
extortion?” thread. Many critics of tort law and employment law – largely
conservatives and libertarians – have long argued that our legal system often
leads to unmeritorious claims being settled to avoid risk and to
Eugene asks, What is it about this particular case that triggers people not
just to complain about the plaintiff’s position, but to call his and his
lawyers’ actions 'extortion?'
I think the actual answer is quite simple, and has nothng to do with legal
theories. People are not upset when people
Art is certainly on to something, but I would emphasize the extreme
unlikelihood that most Texas communities would make the same settlement if the
plaintiff had put a pro-choice message on his/her desk. To put it mildly,
neutral principles does not seem to be the mantra of most Texas politicos.
I appreciate Sandy’s point, but I ask again: Doesn’t this
counsel against a Title VII duty of reasonable accommodation? After all, once
you put a jury in a position of applying a standard as mushy as “reasonable
accommodation” or “undue hardship” of religion, wouldn’t it be
