On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Pollak, Melissa F. <[email protected]> wrote: > > P-Gage wrote: She says she has no intent to sue, which is good for her, > because if what is in her article is all she has, she would be laughed > out of court. > > ME: Twenty years after the event, of course she would be.
Nine years ago I was chatting with an attorney at a party. He specialized in discrimination cases, mostly with people who had been fired from the post office. When I told him I was surprised that the post office ever fired anybody, he said that perception led to the large number of lawsuits - anybody fired from the post office was virtually unemployable after that. One thing he said that stuck with me was when a woman filed a discrimination lawsuit, he advised her to take a settlement and not go to court. He said the jury pool had mostly older women in it and if they heard the plaintiff's story, they'd think, "That's nothing compared with what I went through back in the day," and rule against her. Relating to the current story, I think Nell would have been in a similar position had she brought suit 20 years ago. Including the possibility that nobody in Hollywood would take a chance on hiring her after that. Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
