Wow, all I can say is wow! (Page 2)

i love you

wrong.  you can't deny anyone service based on gender, race, etc etc etc.  having a marketing promotion to get women in the door is not discrimination.  its trying to increase or appeal to a new clientele.

It's discrimination. You are treating someone substantially different because of their gender. It's legality is questionable, but it is discrimination.



Edited by D.Z. 2009-06-16 4:09 PM

This user's post has been ignored.

Hahaha! Excellent!

I understand that in this situation, the plaintiff and the lawyer are the same person. However, if J. Public goes to an Attorney and pays the Attorney to file a lawsuit, why should the attorney refuse to do so? 

The purpose of an Attorney is to represent People in court, not decide who or what is right. Deciding is what the Judge does. Court fees and the awarding of costs to the loser should keep the stupidity somewhat in check. That way only rich people can be really stupid.  It doesn't always work obviously, but even when the Attorney tells the client that they will likely lose, the client can still choose to pay court fees and the attorney by the hour.

Not that many people will spend $350/hour when they are told that they will likely lose because there is no basis in law for their complaint.  Some absolutely will though.

Wuh?

Some forms of discrimination are legal. A faith-based organization can discriminate on religious reasons (a Muslim organization can refuse to hire a Jew, for example), and it is not illegal to discriminate againt a 35 year-old based on their age. An employer can legally refuse to hire a transgendered individual.

No, he's been following the Joe Paterno school of ethics from his fine PSU education. Whine as loud as possible until you either get your way or pewp your pants.

This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by PennState 2009-06-17 11:23 AM

This user's post has been ignored.

This implies that it isn't true... that the "magic age" is 40, when the anti-discrimination laws kick in...

Only 2 more years to go... woo-hoo!!!

eta: well, there seem to be two laws... one applying to all ages, one applying to people over 40.  So yes and no, I guess.

Edited by newleaf 2009-06-17 11:27 AM

I dunno, personal ethics maybe?

It is true. The ADEA protects individuals 40 and over. Under 40, it's not against federal law (in most cases, as the link shows there are some exceptions). Some states may have different laws. All discrimination is wrong, but it is not all in violation of federal law (I should have clarified that in my original post).

Ah, I misread your post.  Missed the "not" in front of the "illegal."