<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: If anything, they should be rewarded</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/if_anything_the.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/if_anything_the.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Moss</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/if_anything_the.html/comment-page-1#comment-59883</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Moss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:49:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/03/if-anything-they-should-be-rewarded.html#comment-59883</guid>
		<description>Oh, I just looked: her lawyer is Larry Klayman, the... well, let&#039;s just say &quot;eccentric&quot; lawyer who spent most of the 90s suing the Clinton administration (mostly in non-substantive FOIA requests aimed at proving this or that conspiracy) and then ran a futile senate race in Florida in 2004.

Employment discrim really is one of those areas where you are extraordinarily likely to lose on summary judgment if you don&#039;t take the right discovery and brief the case just right.  If I were this actress... well, let&#039;s just say I wouldn&#039;t start spending my $100m yet.

And oh yeah, it&#039;s basically legally impossible to sue for $100m for employment discrim.  Economic and emotional distress damages don&#039;t ever get into that ballpark, and under the Sup. Ct.&#039;s recent punitive damages precedents, you pretty much can&#039;t get $99.5 million in punis if your actual (economic+emotional) damages are at most a few hundred thou.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, I just looked: her lawyer is Larry Klayman, the&#8230; well, let&#8217;s just say &#8220;eccentric&#8221; lawyer who spent most of the 90s suing the Clinton administration (mostly in non-substantive FOIA requests aimed at proving this or that conspiracy) and then ran a futile senate race in Florida in 2004.</p>
<p>Employment discrim really is one of those areas where you are extraordinarily likely to lose on summary judgment if you don&#8217;t take the right discovery and brief the case just right.  If I were this actress&#8230; well, let&#8217;s just say I wouldn&#8217;t start spending my $100m yet.</p>
<p>And oh yeah, it&#8217;s basically legally impossible to sue for $100m for employment discrim.  Economic and emotional distress damages don&#8217;t ever get into that ballpark, and under the Sup. Ct.&#8217;s recent punitive damages precedents, you pretty much can&#8217;t get $99.5 million in punis if your actual (economic+emotional) damages are at most a few hundred thou.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Moss</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/if_anything_the.html/comment-page-1#comment-59882</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Moss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:39:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/03/if-anything-they-should-be-rewarded.html#comment-59882</guid>
		<description>I practiced plaintiff-side employment discrim law for a number of years.  I cannot believe that her lawyer gave such a dumb quote: (1) conceding and stressing that there are jobs for which breast size is &quot;obviously&quot; (obviously?!?!) relevant; and (2) making a joke in questionable taste about large breasts being a positive for a Broadway gig.

He&#039;s basically conceding that breast size is often a relevant job qualification: larger breasts are good for job ABC, but smaller ones are better for XYZ.  That&#039;s a ba-a-a-ad way to start pressing your claim that rejecting your client based on breast size is unfair and discriminatory.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I practiced plaintiff-side employment discrim law for a number of years.  I cannot believe that her lawyer gave such a dumb quote: (1) conceding and stressing that there are jobs for which breast size is &#8220;obviously&#8221; (obviously?!?!) relevant; and (2) making a joke in questionable taste about large breasts being a positive for a Broadway gig.</p>
<p>He&#8217;s basically conceding that breast size is often a relevant job qualification: larger breasts are good for job ABC, but smaller ones are better for XYZ.  That&#8217;s a ba-a-a-ad way to start pressing your claim that rejecting your client based on breast size is unfair and discriminatory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christine</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/if_anything_the.html/comment-page-1#comment-59881</link>
		<dc:creator>Christine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:43:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/03/if-anything-they-should-be-rewarded.html#comment-59881</guid>
		<description>Not to belabor this post, but how did her breasts grow?  Was she 15?  Was she pregnant?  Did she order that cream from late-night television?  To me, that is the newsworthy part of the story.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to belabor this post, but how did her breasts grow?  Was she 15?  Was she pregnant?  Did she order that cream from late-night television?  To me, that is the newsworthy part of the story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

