Hilarious Lawsuits

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:38 am

No idea if anyone else is interested in these, but I have read too many hilarious sexual discrimination suits in the past two weeks not to share.

Wonders v. United Tax

Plaintiff is the only female in a 13 person sales team for a tax services company. She had numerous claims, here is a taste of the alleged facts:

-She accidentally touched a substance on the sink of the unisex bathroom and quickly realized it was semen
-She went to lunch with her team and discovered the lunch was held at a strip club
-While enjoying the show, a co-worker put his hands on her shoulder and asked her if "naughty girls need love too?"
-Another day a coworker returned from lunch drunk, took off his shirt and declared that it was "working in skins day." Then he announced "my
dick is hard, feel it Bob!"
-Another day several coworkers returned from lunch drunk and decided to play loud rap music with sexually explicit lyrics. One co-worker tore
off his pants and began dancing in his "peach colored briefs." As he dropped trou he looked at Plaintiff and said, "put this in your lawsuit."
She took his advice.

Plaintiff approached her manager about each incident and was told, "it's good for morale" and provides "a fun sales environment." Who the fuck are these managers? How do you let your subordinates come back from lunch wasted and hold a pantsless dance party during work hours. Especially for a sales team, as their lack of production directly hurts the bottom line?

testy boxcar · Post by **testy boxcar** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:43 am

-Another day a coworker returned from lunch drunk, took off his shirt and declared that it was "working in skins day."

he probably got his guns on point doing some 'shups in the john first. sounds like nosy lady should leave captain karl out of her lawsuit.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:07 am

Clearly I am doing my new sales job all wrong.

Post by **brian** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:13 am

testy boxcar wrote:
-Another day a coworker returned from lunch drunk, took off his shirt and declared that it was "working in skins day."
he probably got his guns on point doing some 'shups in the john first. sounds like nosy lady should leave captain karl out of her lawsuit.

This is exactly what I was thinking as I read that complaint.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:18 pm

brian wrote:
testy boxcar wrote:
-Another day a coworker returned from lunch drunk, took off his shirt and declared that it was "working in skins day."
he probably got his guns on point doing some 'shups in the john first. sounds like nosy lady should leave captain karl out of her lawsuit.
This is exactly what I was thinking as I read that complaint.

Gonna have to swap out the 'Bring if this thing gets any heavier, you guys.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:27 am

Woman damages wrists typing fake profiles for Ashley Madison.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/10 ... t-alleges/

$20 million should be enough for such an injury, but she's seeking an extra million in punitive damages.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:40 pm

So my manager finally shipped me a book she had been promising, and left a note on a heart shaped post-it. I was thinking that this could easily be misconstrued, then looked just below the post at the title of the book: Investigating Workplace Harassment. I think that qualifies as irony. And being the wise ass I am, I had to e-mail her a comment about it. Fortunately she has a sense of humor.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:57 pm

"Then we fucked"

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:46 pm

Gunpowder wrote:"Then we fucked"

She is in California. My D ain't that big.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:55 am

Well if you might go to California...I think you should.

na na naaaa na, naaaa na naaaa na naaaa na na na na

EDIT: differentiating between nas and naaaas and eliminating naaa and naaaaa for conformity

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:58 am

Gunpowder wrote:Well if you might go to California...I think you should.

na na naaaa na, naaaa na naaaa na naaaa na na na na

EDIT: differentiating between nas and naaaas and eliminating naaa and naaaaa for conformity

Thanks for the edit. I was confuzzled.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:43 pm

Turns out, it is NOT acceptable to attend an office holiday party with mistletoe strung from the front of your belt. The law is unclear on hanging the mistletoe from the back of the belt.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:16 am

Just had an employee of one of our clients file an interesting complaint. A coworker was plugging in a new desktop, and the top of his asscrack was on display. The workplace is an open floor with no cubes. Somehow, this guy took the visible asscrack as an example of sexual harassment and somehow related to his membership in the protected class of 40+. I really hope the Age discrimination claim isn't related to the asscrack.

Unless this complainant is a baboon and believes that his coworker displayed his swollen red ass as a sign of sexual availability, I don't see where this is going. WTF is wrong with people?

Post by **brian** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:21 am

The Sybian wrote:Just had an employee of one of our clients file an interesting complaint. A coworker was plugging in a new desktop, and the top of his asscrack was on display. The workplace is an open floor with no cubes. Somehow, this guy took the visible asscrack as an example of sexual harassment and somehow related to his membership in the protected class of 40+. I really hope the Age discrimination claim isn't related to the asscrack.

Unless this complainant is a baboon and believes that his coworker displayed his swollen red ass as a sign of sexual availability, I don't see where this is going. WTF is wrong with people?

Wait, being over 40 is a protected class?

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:27 am

brian wrote:
The Sybian wrote:Just had an employee of one of our clients file an interesting complaint. A coworker was plugging in a new desktop, and the top of his asscrack was on display. The workplace is an open floor with no cubes. Somehow, this guy took the visible asscrack as an example of sexual harassment and somehow related to his membership in the protected class of 40+. I really hope the Age discrimination claim isn't related to the asscrack.

Unless this complainant is a baboon and believes that his coworker displayed his swollen red ass as a sign of sexual availability, I don't see where this is going. WTF is wrong with people?
Wait, being over 40 is a protected class?

Dear God, I've created a monster! Age Discrimination Act of 1967 (ADEA).

Post by **brian** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:32 am

I can do anything I want now. This is glorious!

(Seriously though, first time I've probably been a protected class from a legal sense. I'm a normal-sized middle class white male with 100 percent European ancestry, so it's pretty hard to fuck that up.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:33 am

are there no consequences for frivilous lawsuits? like calling 911 or pulling the fire alarm?

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:54 pm

degenerasian wrote:are there no consequences for frivilous lawsuits? like calling 911 or pulling the fire alarm?

There can be, but it is a really high standard to meet. If it is bad enough of a case, the lawyer can be sanctioned for filing it, but that is extremely rare, unless some states are more liberal with sanctions. In some types of suits, the statutes can provide for fee shifting, where the losing side has to pay the winning side's legal fees. The British system uses fee shifting, but again, it isn't the norm in US cases.

The complainant I mentioned isn't a lawsuit. Yet. The employee filed a complaint with his HR rep, which is essentially my company, so one of my colleagues will be looking into it.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:11 am

Guy passes out at ball game. Sues ESPN because announcers made fun of him.

$10 million seems about right.

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/07/ ... ederated=1

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:06 am

Dude is obvously uptight, but ESPN guys did go too far. Shoulda been a chuckle and move on, but they piled it on.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:41 am

AB_skin_test wrote:Dude is obvously uptight, but ESPN guys did go too far. Shoulda been a chuckle and move on, but they piled it on.

I just can't see announcers in any other sport, especially a game between the two biggest rivals, ignoring the game and blathering on. I think the guy eating the chicken fingers has a suit for at least $2 Million. How is this fool losing future earnings? When you enter the stadium, especially sitting in the front row, you waive some rights to privacy and have to expect you might be on TV.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:44 am

The Sybian wrote:
AB_skin_test wrote:Dude is obvously uptight, but ESPN guys did go too far. Shoulda been a chuckle and move on, but they piled it on.
I just can't see announcers in any other sport, especially a game between the two biggest rivals, ignoring the game and blathering on. I think the guy eating the chicken fingers has a suit for at least $2 Million. How is this fool losing future earnings? When you enter the stadium, especially sitting in the front row, you waive some rights to privacy and have to expect you might be on TV.

Oh yeah, says so on your ticket. And if it were me I'd have been calling in to Mike and Mike and not filing a lawsuit. They shoudl settle for giving him a car wash!

rass · Post by **rass** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:39 pm

Applebee's not liable for N.J. man burned while praying over fajita skillet

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:57 pm

See, what bugs me about so many of these, and the Applebee's example is a prime example... People will point to that lawsuit and inevitably some clown will reference the McD's coffee burning lawsuit.

SO MANY people don't know the facts in that case, and they just assume it was frivolous. Mainly because we've been brainwashed by big business types into thinking "we are an overly litigious society" and all that.

And, yeah, as these examples prove, people are assholes. But the flip side is that we need a mechanism to hold corporations and govt entities accountable. 60 minutes just ran a story about FEMA's lack of oversight, allowing insurance companies to straight up alter reports justifying denying Hurricane Sandy claims. The only reliable way for those people to get their money is to sue the insurance companies.

Sorry, I know you guys know this...

rass · Post by **rass** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:03 pm

So I should have put that in the Godless thread as was my initial inclination?

cerrano · Post by **cerrano** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:03 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote:See, what bugs me about so many of these, and the Applebee's example is a prime example... People will point to that lawsuit and inevitably some clown will reference the McD's coffee burning lawsuit.

SO MANY people don't know the facts in that case, and they just assume it was frivolous. Mainly because we've been brainwashed by big business types into thinking "we are an overly litigious society" and all that.

And, yeah, as these examples prove, people are assholes. But the flip side is that we need a mechanism to hold corporations and govt entities accountable. 60 minutes just ran a story about FEMA's lack of oversight, allowing insurance companies to straight up alter reports justifying denying Hurricane Sandy claims. The only reliable way for those people to get their money is to sue the insurance companies.

Sorry, I know you guys know this...

tort reform is some serious bullshit. if you cap awards, businesses will just factor them into the cost of doing business.

i got out of jury duty in a civil case by stating my opposition to tort reform on the questionnaire. the judge called me over to sidebar to see if i was bullshitting, but when he and the attorneys realized that i had thought about the issue, i was challenged. didn't want to hear a case about a car accident, anyway.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:12 pm

Two of my all time favorites:

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Docum ... v_Lodi.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Docum ... _Satan.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:34 pm

Rex wrote:Two of my all time favorites:

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Docum ... v_Lodi.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Docum ... _Satan.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lodi is awesome! The guy is either some sort of evil genius, or batshit crazy. What was he trying to accomplish? I was expecting some sort of attempt to change the nature of a trust so he could access the funds, or avoid taxes, but, according to the court, "the purpose of plaintiff's action is not entirely clear."

I was disappointed the court didn't have some fun with the opinion, but it was too hard to resist.

In the circumstances, this result cannot be unfair to Mr.
Lodi. Although it is true that, as plaintiff and appellant, he
loses, it is equally true that, as defendant and respondent, he
wins3 It is hard to imagine a more even handed *632 application
of justice

Even better:

We have considered whether respondent/defendant/beneficiary
should be awarded his costs of suit on appeal,
which he could thereafter recover from himself.
However, we believe the equities are better served by requiring
each party to bear his own costs on appeal.

I hope appellant/plaintiff/reversioner appealed the court's denial of fee shifting after calling it a "slam-dunk frivolous complaint."

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:43 pm

if you don't laugh out loud at the line "each party to bear his own costs," then I don't know you. Also, this from the Satan case:

We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint
the required form of instructions for the United States
Marshal for directions as to service of process.

Have we killed this thread yet?

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 10:58 am

brian wrote:I can do anything I want now. This is glorious!

(Seriously though, first time I've probably been a protected class from a legal sense. I'm a normal-sized middle class white male with 100 percent European ancestry, so it's pretty hard to fuck that up.

Missed this before. Everyone is in a protected class. White is a race, therefore you can be discriminated against based on race. Lots of cases, specifically where racial quotas are involved, when a black was hired instead of a more qualified white person solely because of race. Some call it reverse discrimination. That is why activist Liberal judges had to make the lame excuse of "diversity being a benefit" so they could continue to oppress the white man. Same with being a man, Supreme Court first addressed in a case where Southwest Airlines only hired women. They ran their airline like a strip club with short skirts and go-go boots. Stewardesses sat in guys laps and flirted with them. Some dude wanted to work there, and they said they only hire women. Flying was so much better in the old days...

rass · Post by **rass** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:23 am

OK, how about this one?

h/t

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:24 pm

rass wrote:OK, how about this one?

h/t

Good luck arguing that the general public will confuse a granola product with a musical duo. I also don't see how they are going to show specific damages, but whatever. I am a bit confused reading the Complainant. The Complaint refers to Hall & Oats being assigned a TM for the name "Haulin Oats" for food products, but it didn't include that in the list of TMs or attach that TM as an Exhibit like it did for the others. They also only included documentation of the 3 listed TMs, but all the docs say "Record 3 of 4." Am I completely missing it? They own TMs for music recordings, t-shirts and entertainment. The granola company has a registered TM for "Haulin Oats" for food products. The Complainant doesn't mention who assigned the food TM to the Duo, list it or attach a copy as an Exhibit. I highly doubt the USPTMO would issue two identical TMs in the same classification to different parties.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:25 pm

No Can Sue

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:21 pm

cerrano wrote:
Nonlinear FC wrote:See, what bugs me about so many of these, and the Applebee's example is a prime example... People will point to that lawsuit and inevitably some clown will reference the McD's coffee burning lawsuit.

SO MANY people don't know the facts in that case, and they just assume it was frivolous. Mainly because we've been brainwashed by big business types into thinking "we are an overly litigious society" and all that.

And, yeah, as these examples prove, people are assholes. But the flip side is that we need a mechanism to hold corporations and govt entities accountable. 60 minutes just ran a story about FEMA's lack of oversight, allowing insurance companies to straight up alter reports justifying denying Hurricane Sandy claims. The only reliable way for those people to get their money is to sue the insurance companies.

Sorry, I know you guys know this...
tort reform is some serious bullshit. if you cap awards, businesses will just factor them into the cost of doing business.

i got out of jury duty in a civil case by stating my opposition to tort reform on the questionnaire. the judge called me over to sidebar to see if i was bullshitting, but when he and the attorneys realized that i had thought about the issue, i was challenged. didn't want to hear a case about a car accident, anyway.

Justice Sotomayor was here in Utah a few weeks ago, giving a lunchtime speech to a lawyers' group. Twice during this talk she volunteered that plaintiffs' lawyers should not be so reflexively opposed to "tort reform."

I was trying to figure out what kinds of tort reform she thinks are not pure bullshit cooked up by insurance companies and the Fortune 500. Any ideas on what kinds of reform might appeal to a liberal justice? I guess tort laws may be more pro-plaintiff in New York than they are here, so maybe we already have the kinds of reforms she is thinking about.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:41 pm

The Sybian wrote:
rass wrote:OK, how about this one?

h/t
Good luck arguing that the general public will confuse a granola product with a musical duo. I also don't see how they are going to show specific damages, but whatever. I am a bit confused reading the Complainant. The Complaint refers to Hall & Oats being assigned a TM for the name "Haulin Oats" for food products, but it didn't include that in the list of TMs or attach that TM as an Exhibit like it did for the others. They also only included documentation of the 3 listed TMs, but all the docs say "Record 3 of 4." Am I completely missing it? They own TMs for music recordings, t-shirts and entertainment. The granola company has a registered TM for "Haulin Oats" for food products. The Complainant doesn't mention who assigned the food TM to the Duo, list it or attach a copy as an Exhibit. I highly doubt the USPTMO would issue two identical TMs in the same classification to different parties.

Thank you. I was confused by what had a mark and what didn't in that document.

And, hey, I took the LSATs back in the day, so I'm pretty much qualified to be a lawyer right?

Post by **Shirley** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:20 pm

The Sybian wrote:
rass wrote:OK, how about this one?

h/t
Good luck arguing that the general public will confuse a granola product with a musical duo. I also don't see how they are going to show specific damages, but whatever. I am a bit confused reading the Complainant. The Complaint refers to Hall & Oats being assigned a TM for the name "Haulin Oats" for food products, but it didn't include that in the list of TMs or attach that TM as an Exhibit like it did for the others. They also only included documentation of the 3 listed TMs, but all the docs say "Record 3 of 4." Am I completely missing it? They own TMs for music recordings, t-shirts and entertainment. The granola company has a registered TM for "Haulin Oats" for food products. The Complainant doesn't mention who assigned the food TM to the Duo, list it or attach a copy as an Exhibit. I highly doubt the USPTMO would issue two identical TMs in the same classification to different parties.

I had the same question about that. I thought maybe their attorney was claiming that their existing trademarks also covered "Haulin' Oats" because it sounds the same. So by his logic, they owned that mark.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:30 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: Thank you. I was confused by what had a mark and what didn't in that document.

And, hey, I took the LSATs back in the day, so I'm pretty much qualified to be a lawyer right?

you showed better judgment by not going to law school, so I'd say yes.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:33 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Justice Sotomayor was here in Utah a few weeks ago, giving a lunchtime speech to a lawyers' group. Twice during this talk she volunteered that plaintiffs' lawyers should not be so reflexively opposed to "tort reform."

I was trying to figure out what kinds of tort reform she thinks are not pure bullshit cooked up by insurance companies and the Fortune 500. Any ideas on what kinds of reform might appeal to a liberal justice? I guess tort laws may be more pro-plaintiff in New York than they are here, so maybe we already have the kinds of reforms she is thinking about.

Perhaps Sotomayer is actually not that liberal. The current Court is so conservative on business matters that she may appear to be liberal only in that context.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:52 pm

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting approach...most of my court filings do not refer to the judge as an "impotent geezer"

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:11 pm

Rex wrote:

Interesting approach...most of my court filings do not refer to the judge as an "impotent geezer"

But do sign off by telling the Judge: "You control nothing. You are nothing. And you can do nothing. F*ck you. Die."

I want to read the self published article she wrote and attached, but I can only read so much crazy in one sitting.