moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>
> >> Hi Jackie,
> >>
> >> Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge Wright based
> >> her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male employer
> >> showing his manhood to a female employee and telling her to kiss it does not
> >> constitute conduct outrageous enough to constitute an actionable tort. That
> >> is what she said in her decision. The law in no way describes what an
> >> outrageous act is. Judge Wright determined that.
> >>
> >> Do you agree?
> >>
> >
> >Mornin' Terry,
> > I think you need to read the decision.
> >...Mac
>
> Hi Mac,
>
> Here I will read it to you. This is extracted from the decision:
>
> "In addressing the issues in this case, the Court has viewed the record in the
> light most favorable to the plaintiff and given her the benefit of all
> reasonable factual inferences, which is required at this stage of the
> proceedings."
> Best, Terry
>
Mornin',
That does nothing to support your claim. There is nothing in her decision that
warrants
a charge of prejudice.
...Mac
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
