kohlrak: So, we're asking for fair compensation and for extra money beyond that.
Jemolk: Um, no. Punitive damages are not "beyond fair compensation." The point of punitive damages is to actually make it costly to try to cheat people, because punitive damages are not as strictly limited as compensation, and so can increase to the point of becoming a real cost and a real risk.
That's fine, but it's beyond fair compensation. The point of civil court is to make what happened as painless as possible, not to reward people for being victims. Punitive damages goes beyond that, and, rather than being there to help the victim, is there to punish the defendant, as you point out. It is beyond fair compensation, regardless of it's true purpose, it's still more than what is deemed necessary for the original goal of removing the pain of what has happened.
Now, i would agree with you on clarity if it wasn't for the obvious "and other remedies and penalties" bit. There's something about that that seems oddly inspecific, yet i'm sure the cited legislation would be more specific... But it sure would save time and effort on everyone's behalf if they just enumerated that right here instead.
Maybe because putting half a bill into the "requested relief" section is unnecessary for clarity? This is entirely typical of documents of its sort, and the rant makes it seem like you're just looking for an excuse to dismiss the complaint.
I already dismissed the complaint on the grounds that there's really not much to it. But, you're right, which is also why i find it strange they went for brevity here when enumerating everywhere else. It's really inconsistent.
So we wantthem to do something in addition to paying money, and we aren't going to define what that even is?
I'm not entirely sure what it means either, but I'm certainly not going to claim that the judges and lawyers involved don't. That would be rather presumptuous. Especially because I'm fairly sure this has a rather specific technical meaning here, having run across it before.
I'm sure it's mentioned somewhere, or maybe they left it vague for the court to decide. Injuction is where you sue for action instead of money, so the fact it wasn't actually mentioned what they wanted to happen is really, really interesting.
My legalese has gotten rusty over the years, and i'm not quite sure what this is. Using my basic deduction skills, though, i would assume that means "the relief defined in this section."
Again, I'm quite sure, having run across it before, that it has a very specific technical meaning.
Well, isn't it interesting?
So this is the stuff in 2, except properly enumerated, but also leaving the amount incredibly vague. See, we aren't going to state before hand what our initial demand is, right? Who the hell knows why?
I wouldn't count on that. It includes some things that would be specified in the relevant legal codes, yes, but you're very aggressively applying a layman's interpretation to all this, and that just isn't going to be reliable. While we're at it -- leaving things open-ended can result in getting more than you would have otherwise asked for. That tends to be desirable in lawsuits.
That's what punitive damages are for. You're supposed to lay down what you're actually asking for, which they aren't. Now i asusme this is because they're representing a number of people and are trying to leave it open for more people to join the suit, which is typical of class action suits, which is this obviously trying to be.
And they already declare this is actually implicit in law and shouldn't even need delcared.
Required and implicit are two different things, as are whether you think something should need to be declared and whether it actually does need to be declared. Certainly it doesn't hurt, and lawyers are expected to be meticulous.
Yes, required and implicit are different, but it's not like the thing being asked for is implicit, but rather that which is required is being declared when requirement is already included (thus implicit). It's like putting up signs saying "hey, you must follow the law in this area" or "murder is illegal, therefore you can go to jail for that, which means going to jail" It's almost a tautology.
Which always baffles me, because that's also implied in a civil trial, and a major part of lawfare.
Expected, yes. (Not implied. Implied is something else entirely.) You DO still have to actually request this stuff.
Which is why i'm baffled. To not make this the rule instead of the exception to the rule entirely undermines the entire purpose of civil court. There's something wrong with this. It's like walking up to the cash register at a store and the clerk saying "btw, i hope you know, you may not leave without paying for stuff."
This is what we call... "punitive damages," mentioned back at 1.
No, it's "hey, if you'd like to give us more than we're asking for, we certainly won't say no!"
Which is punitive damages. You say i'm wrong, but then go on to say exactly what i said.
One of my favorite things is how the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION implicitly makes one of the presumed plaintiffs a defendant. You know, Chief People Officer Claudine Naughton, whom, if you look her up, has HR for AIG in her employment history, implying to me that part of the "People department" would be HR? I would love to hear her have to take the stand and claim she was paid unfairly compared to all the male officers in "comparable positions" and then have to take the stand again and defend her department's actions, and somehow explain how she's part of this frat group that descriminates on female outsiders like her. Maybe i'm just making too many assumptions, here, but this looks like good fun.
Okay, what the hell is this? Yes, women are capable of perpetuating sexism against women. Yes, a woman can be part of a structure that discriminates against women, and even help maintain it. Sexism (and racism, and all the other forms of institutionalized bigotry) is a structure, not
just a series of individual beliefs and behaviors. That's not to say individual beliefs and behaviors don't play into it, but it's more than that and always has been.
Yes, but take a second to look at the fact that we're effectively seeing a plaintiff being a defendant for the same case. When your best evidence for a "frat culture" (which you would expect being brought forth in this document to ensure the court doesn't throw out this case) involves a woman you're declaring a victim, while simultaneously declaring she's part of the frat, you're undermining your own argument. It's like someone shooting themselves in the foot, with intention to be extra clear, and then turning around and claiming to be a victim of a mass shooting. They're stating the workplace has a male centered culture, and they're blaming one of their own victims for the problems. You'd have an argument if they didn't cite her as one of the examples of women being trated unfairly. She's both a victim and a perpetrator? And this is their best example, by the looks of things.
EDIT: And imagine right now saying "white men" in a lawsuit. This sounds like something out of a comedy routine about modern politics. Maybe they should've left the race out of this, just sayin'.
Imagine presuming that it couldn't possibly be relevant.
Certainly could be, but it's an ad hominem argument. Stick to what's going on, not pejoratives: it weakens your case.
JakobFel: EDIT: Oh, isn't that just nice? We've got ourselves spam downvoters here.
Are you new, here?
JÖCKÖ HÖMÖ: Hopefully all those involved in this case get exposed and sentenced.
JakobFel: EDIT: Oh, isn't that just nice? We've got ourselves spam downvoters here.
JÖCKÖ HÖMÖ: It's surprising how many supporters of corruption there are on gog.
What? you suddenly feel at home?
