The Truth About Gender Based Discrimination Lawsuits

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

More nonsense, this crap is why the country is declining.

[magicattack]

This has been in the news a lot lately. I'm not partial to either side. If there were a way for both sides to lose, that would be my vote.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Mar 27, 2015 13:01:04 GMT -5 magicattack said:

This has been in the news a lot lately. I'm not partial to either side. If there were a way for both sides to lose, that would be my vote.

I wouldn't want both sides to lose. I believe the best person should get the job and companies should be able to hire who they want just like people can shop where they want or work where they want. These silly lawsuits do cause everyone to lose in the long run. Higher costs, harder for protected classes to get jobs, etc.

[magicattack]

I was thinking along the lines of she wins the lawsuit, and is compensated $1.


The company loses face, because, apparently, there was some back room shenanigans going on. But they aren't out any significant money.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

What were the shenanigans?

She should get $0 really. You still lose since you have to pay to defend yourself and deal with the hassle of the court system.

[magicattack]

Mar 27, 2015 16:05:28 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

What were the shenanigans?

One of the former partners was sleeping around with the females.

She should get $0 really. You still lose since you have to pay to defend yourself and deal with the hassle of the court system.

Exactly my point.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Mar 27, 2015 16:29:05 GMT -5 magicattack said:

Mar 27, 2015 16:05:28 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

What were the shenanigans?

One of the former partners was sleeping around with the females.

She should get $0 really. You still lose since you have to pay to defend yourself and deal with the hassle of the court system.

Exactly my point.

Meh, possibly. The people who sue say lots of things but I don't think it has any bearing on this issue particularly. That said I think it's bad to crap where you eat.

[magicattack]

Mar 27, 2015 16:44:55 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Mar 27, 2015 16:29:05 GMT -5 magicattack said:

One of the former partners was sleeping around with the females.

Exactly my point.

Meh, possibly. The people who sue say lots of things but I don't think it has any bearing on this issue particularly. That said I think it's bad to crap where you eat.

If anyone is interested she lost the case.

To me, it seemed like the case of the greedy bitch vs the rich assholes. Seeing as how my outcome would never happen, this is probably the next best thing.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Mar 28, 2015 10:13:46 GMT -5 magicattack said:

Mar 27, 2015 16:44:55 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Meh, possibly. The people who sue say lots of things but I don't think it has any bearing on this issue particularly. That said I think it's bad to crap where you eat.

If anyone is interested she lost the case.

To me, it seemed like the case of the greedy bitch vs the rich assholes. Seeing as how my outcome would never happen, this is probably the next best thing.

She should have lost. Frivolous lawsuits are very common and have a high cost to society. Our lawsuits have gone through the roof in the last few decades and I'm pretty sure we're the highest in the world by far.

I don't think they were rich assholes at all, as far as I know at least. Being rich doesn't mean you're a bad person and should be sued. Even if you were an asshole it doesn't mean you should be sued, either. There's a lot of detestable poor and middle class people as well and they don't deserved to be sued either. These easy litigation laws should go away. That or have loser pays so you'd have to have a good reason to sue and won't resort to extorting others. I despise these as much as I despise the ridiculous child support and alimony laws. The women paint the men as a villain in order to steal their money there too.

[magicattack]

Mar 28, 2015 11:21:09 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Mar 28, 2015 10:13:46 GMT -5 magicattack said:

If anyone is interested she lost the case.

To me, it seemed like the case of the greedy bitch vs the rich assholes. Seeing as how my outcome would never happen, this is probably the next best thing.

She should have lost. Frivolous lawsuits are very common and have a high cost to society. Our lawsuits have gone through the roof in the last few decades and I'm pretty sure we're the highest in the world by far.

That may be true, but that's the society we live in.

I don't think they were rich assholes at all, as far as I know at least. Being rich doesn't mean you're a bad person and should be sued. Even if you were an asshole it doesn't mean you should be sued, either. There's a lot of detestable poor and middle class people as well and they don't deserved to be sued either. These easy litigation laws should go away. That or have loser pays so you'd have to have a good reason to sue and won't resort to extorting others. I despise these as much as I despise the ridiculous child support and alimony laws. The women paint the men as a villain in order to steal their money there too.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of them, I am simply basing mine off of what I know about the partners.


But I am not implying that the partners are assholes because they are rich. I guess the correct terminology would be assholes that just happen to be rich.

I know plenty of rich and poor people. There are genuinely nice people at both ends of the financial spectrum. But nice people make mistakes and do the wrong thing sometimes too.

Of course no one should be sued frivously, but it happens. Do we toss out the cases that have merit simply because of cases like this? Obviously not.

There has to be a way for 2 parties to settle their differences. If there was an unbiased way to determine if a case has merit or not, I think someone should present that idea. Then there would be a substantial drop in silly cases like this.

As for the costs, the residents of California already pay for the courts, through taxes, so that is a non issue. Kleiner Perkins' lawyers are on retainer, last I knew, so that is a non issue. The only one that has to be paid for his services would be Pao's lawyer. Hopefully he was being paid on contigency, because

1st- he took the case, which was really thin to start with. Which wasted everyone else's time.

2nd- he really didn't do a good job. It was a tough case to win, but he wasn't good.


But this all really doesn't matter anyways, the case is over.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Mar 28, 2015 15:51:09 GMT -5 magicattack said:

Mar 28, 2015 11:21:09 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

She should have lost. Frivolous lawsuits are very common and have a high cost to society. Our lawsuits have gone through the roof in the last few decades and I'm pretty sure we're the highest in the world by far.

That may be true, but that's the society we live in.

I don't think they were rich assholes at all, as far as I know at least. Being rich doesn't mean you're a bad person and should be sued. Even if you were an asshole it doesn't mean you should be sued, either. There's a lot of detestable poor and middle class people as well and they don't deserved to be sued either. These easy litigation laws should go away. That or have loser pays so you'd have to have a good reason to sue and won't resort to extorting others. I despise these as much as I despise the ridiculous child support and alimony laws. The women paint the men as a villain in order to steal their money there too.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of them, I am simply basing mine off of what I know about the partners.


But I am not implying that the partners are assholes because they are rich. I guess the correct terminology would be assholes that just happen to be rich.

I know plenty of rich and poor people. There are genuinely nice people at both ends of the financial spectrum. But nice people make mistakes and do the wrong thing sometimes too.

Of course no one should be sued frivously, but it happens. Do we toss out the cases that have merit simply because of cases like this? Obviously not.

There has to be a way for 2 parties to settle their differences. If there was an unbiased way to determine if a case has merit or not, I think someone should present that idea. Then there would be a substantial drop in silly cases like this.

As for the costs, the residents of California already pay for the courts, through taxes, so that is a non issue. Kleiner Perkins' lawyers are on retainer, last I knew, so that is a non issue. The only one that has to be paid for his services would be Pao's lawyer. Hopefully he was being paid on contigency, because

1st- he took the case, which was really thin to start with. Which wasted everyone else's time.

2nd- he really didn't do a good job. It was a tough case to win, but he wasn't good.


But this all really doesn't matter anyways, the case is over.

Well I'm aware that society is like this, but it's a big problem. We file a lawsuit every 2 seconds in the US. We have a lot of existing problems in society due to bad legislation. One thing is that people don't take accountability for their own actions. People should be able to sell their labor in a free market. If this woman was that good she could take her skills and get better pay somewhere else. People like to sue frivolously because it doesn't really cost them much and they're resentful. These bad laws make it very lucrative to extort. I have fellow business owner friends who've been sued over silliness as well when they've fired an incompetent worker. I had a former customer try to accuse us of something and when I provided photographic proof she backed off.

It's very difficult to prove you didn't do something. And like Schiff said, you should have the same rights to choose workers as someone does to choose their job, so you shouldn't lose your right to choose when you open a business. This idea that someone can sue me because I chose not to employ or promote them is ludicrous. I don't need the government to point a gun to my head to tell me how to run my business in my best interest. They can't even manage themselves.

Then we the taxpayer have to pay for this silliness so it costs us. Companies get sued, people lose jobs, their pay goes down, others don't get hired, or they raise their costs. So nothing is free and these people who want to sue because they're resentful of someone having more money than them is just absurd. The fact is a company is far more likely to be sued because they have more money. Why would I bother suing a loser who can't pay? It's more lucrative for a loser to sue a company because they know they're easy to collect from. Even Peter Shiff was sued by someone who got into a bad investment with an employee he had long fired. Since the customer had an account he still sued and won which made no sense since they warn not to contact former brokers.

Society won't punish morons for their own actions and take pity on them which allows these suits to take place because they see the business owner as the "evil greedy rich guy" and the employee/customer as the "poor victim", no matter how despicable they are. Just like they see women as victims in divorce cases and the men as bad no matter what.

Either way the lawyers win, they and these government agencies love these laws the most. People should make money by being productive and not take it from someone else. Loser paying would definitely help towards that as well as judges and juries who just don't bother rewarding them or taking these cases seriously if at all. Even if a business "wins" they still lose because of the time and money, plus the reputation loss, causing many to just settle, which is basically extortion.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Funny and sad about his own employee trying to sue him and making up a lie even after he offered to pay him to take a polygraph.

Turns out this chick was hired as an assistant never intending to do venture capital. She was fucking some married guy at the job and got angry and filed complaints when she found out he wouldn't leave his wife for her (big surprise there). She wasn't great to work around and she was also being paid *more* than her male counterparts.

She definitely deserved to lose.

[magicattack]

Never ever take a lie detector test, no matter if you are innocent or guilty.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 1, 2015 12:34:19 GMT -5 magicattack said:

Never ever take a lie detector test, no matter if you are innocent or guilty.

Yea I'd taken Peter up on that 1 million dollar offer, and lied through my teeth. You can deceive those things.

[magicattack]

Apr 1, 2015 13:04:58 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Apr 1, 2015 12:34:19 GMT -5 magicattack said:

Never ever take a lie detector test, no matter if you are innocent or guilty.

Yea I'd taken Peter up on that 1 million dollar offer, and lied through my teeth. You can deceive those things.

True, but using one is a lose-lose in any criminal proceedings. But I would take the money, and my chances, in a civil case.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 1, 2015 13:45:39 GMT -5 magicattack said:

Apr 1, 2015 13:04:58 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Yea I'd taken Peter up on that 1 million dollar offer, and lied through my teeth. You can deceive those things.

True, but using one is a lose-lose in any criminal proceedings. But I would take the money, and my chances, in a civil case.

Well this was a civil lawsuit.

Polygraphs don't hold up too well in criminal cases on their own (usually).

[magicattack]

Do you feel that Peter Schiff should have paid all the court fees in the case that he lost?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 1, 2015 15:49:14 GMT -5 magicattack said:

Do you feel that Peter Schiff should have paid all the court fees in the case that he lost?

You mean if *he* lost the case he was in? Well I think loser pays would be better although that was a stupid case he was in.

Otherwise people just extort with the legal system to get companies to pay. Most don't make it to court since people just settle to avoid the hassle and costs. People know this and exploit it. This way people would only sue if they truly felt they had a valid reason in which they could win.

The way the system is now they just rule against the businessman a lot of the time since they just have the be found liable meaning they probably played a role in it. He's had a few dumb lawsuits, and I think he had two last year. One involved a customer who met up with a long fired worker and invested in something stupid behind the scenes (horse race gambling) and lost hundreds of thousands. He sued Peter when they make it clear not to contact fired workers and that they are not liable for it. They're also required to post the record of fired brokers, and he still lost out of pity for the "poor guy". Drives me insane.

[magicattack]

3 types of people that I don't trust. Lawyers, politicians, and investment strategists (anyone that fits the profile of someone that gives financial advice, or manages other people's money).

In any of these trials I don't take what either side says to heart. Both sides attempt, very hard, to present themselves as the "victim".


Would you have the different levels of civil suits be a "losers pay" system? From the small claims court all the way up.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 1, 2015 19:13:51 GMT -5 magicattack said:

3 types of people that I don't trust. Lawyers, politicians, and investment strategists (anyone that fits the profile of someone that gives financial advice, or manages other people's money).

In any of these trials I don't take what either side says to heart. Both sides attempt, very hard, to present themselves as the "victim".


Would you have the different levels of civil suits be a "losers pay" system? From the small claims court all the way up.

Well two of those parties use the law and legal system to benefit themselves at the expense of others. One party has to earn customers and keep them around by keeping them satisfied. The problem is people don't take responsibility when it comes to managing their money and assume there's no risk. They think they can just hand their money to someone and "get rich". Since most people don't want to put in the effort to invest they find someone else to do it for them (which is fine). Any investment should be met with due diligence like any broker. Money management is yet another area the government has gotten in and ruined. Many firms like Peter's don't take people below a certain amount of money because they're more likely to sue if they lose in an investment which is always possible.

This isn't an investor or money manager issue, this is about laws that allow employees to sue their employers frivolously while they are allowed to discriminate. Being a money manager doesn't mean a person deserves to be sued.

If you are a defendant in a case it's hard to prove you "didn't" do something so they're trying to prove innocence. It seems to me like she's trying to play victim and use it to extort money. I shouldn't have to "play victim" when someone's extorting money from me and I want to be left alone. Why are employees inherently trustworthy when they have something to gain by stealing money. There are plenty of lousy workers who use the law in their favor. She has the incentive to lie because she wants to extort money out of them. No different than women lie in divorce cases to get the house and the children from men. I wouldn't assume the man is bad when the law is overwhelmingly out of his favor.

Loser pay is one step. Those ridiculous laws shouldn't be there at all as I've said before. Either way the evidence wasn't on her side.

[magicattack]

Apr 1, 2015 19:56:10 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Apr 1, 2015 19:13:51 GMT -5 magicattack said:

3 types of people that I don't trust. Lawyers, politicians, and investment strategists (anyone that fits the profile of someone that gives financial advice, or manages other people's money).

In any of these trials I don't take what either side says to heart. Both sides attempt, very hard, to present themselves as the "victim".




Would you have the different levels of civil suits be a "losers pay" system? From the small claims court all the way up.

Well two of those parties use the law and legal system to benefit themselves at the expense of others. One party has to earn customers and keep them around by keeping them satisfied. The problem is people don't take responsibility when it comes to managing their money and assume there's no risk. They think they can just hand their money to someone and "get rich". Since most people don't want to put in the effort to invest they find someone else to do it for them. Any investment should be met with due diligence like any broker. Money management is yet another area the government has gotten in and ruined. Many firms like Peter's don't take people below a certain amount of money because they're more likely to sue if they lose in an investment which is always possible.

My problem with them revolves around their inability, or reluctance to admit when they have made a mistake. Every one of them can make a laundry list of their accomplishments. Whether it be financially, politically, or judiciary.

I am more interested in their failures, and how they handled such failure. What their plan is to try to avoid the mistake in the future.

Any idiot can make money in a bull market. When jobs are plentiful and things are booming, the politician looks great. Lawyers are self explanatory.

When things get tough, and take a turn for the worse, that is when we see them for what they are. Do they make excuses, or do they get results?

I put all 3 in the same category as a mentalist. A confidence man, if you will.

This isn't an investor or money manager issue, this is about laws that allow employees to sue their employers frivolously while they are allowed to discriminate. Being a money manager doesn't mean a person deserves to be sued.

I'm not saying that, just that I don't trust them.

Unless there is something going on like money laundering, or pyramid scheme, or something of that nature.

If you are a defendant in a case it's hard to prove you "didn't" do something so they're trying to prove innocence. It seems to me like she's trying to play victim and use it to extort money. I shouldn't have to "play victim" when someone's extorting money from me and I want to be left alone. Why are employees inherently trustworthy when they have something to gain by stealing money.

I agree, but conversely I wouldn't just assume the employer is telling the truth either. Someone that makes a living at stretching the truth isn't going to all of a sudden be truthful because of a lawsuit.

There are plenty of lousy workers who use the law in their favor. She has the incentive to lie because she wants to extort money out of them. No different than women lie in divorce cases to get the house and the children from men. I wouldn't assume the man is bad when the law is overwhelmingly out of his favor.

Loser pay is one step. Those ridiculous laws shouldn't be there at all as I've said before. Either way the evidence wasn't on her side.

What I am asking is - would you like to see loser pay enforced in small claims court? Sometimes the case might be over some trivial amount like $10. The cost of the court would far exceed the amount in question. You might view that as a frivolous law suit, whereas the plaintiff and defendant would view it as an actual problem that needs to be settled.

I only ask because while the large money lawsuits could easily pay for themselves, the small claims could present a huge problem, financially, to the loser.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 1, 2015 20:35:10 GMT -5 magicattack said:

Apr 1, 2015 19:56:10 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well two of those parties use the law and legal system to benefit themselves at the expense of others. One party has to earn customers and keep them around by keeping them satisfied. The problem is people don't take responsibility when it comes to managing their money and assume there's no risk. They think they can just hand their money to someone and "get rich". Since most people don't want to put in the effort to invest they find someone else to do it for them. Any investment should be met with due diligence like any broker. Money management is yet another area the government has gotten in and ruined. Many firms like Peter's don't take people below a certain amount of money because they're more likely to sue if they lose in an investment which is always possible.

My problem with them revolves around their inability, or reluctance to admit when they have made a mistake. Every one of them can make a laundry list of their accomplishments. Whether it be financially, politically, or judiciary.

I am more interested in their failures, and how they handled such failure. What their plan is to try to avoid the mistake in the future.

Any idiot can make money in a bull market. When jobs are plentiful and things are booming, the politician looks great. Lawyers are self explanatory.

When things get tough, and take a turn for the worse, that is when we see them for what they are. Do they make excuses, or do they get results?

I put all 3 in the same category as a mentalist. A confidence man, if you will.

This isn't an investor or money manager issue, this is about laws that allow employees to sue their employers frivolously while they are allowed to discriminate. Being a money manager doesn't mean a person deserves to be sued.

I'm not saying that, just that I don't trust them.

Unless there is something going on like money laundering, or pyramid scheme, or something of that nature.

If you are a defendant in a case it's hard to prove you "didn't" do something so they're trying to prove innocence. It seems to me like she's trying to play victim and use it to extort money. I shouldn't have to "play victim" when someone's extorting money from me and I want to be left alone. Why are employees inherently trustworthy when they have something to gain by stealing money.

I agree, but conversely I wouldn't just assume the employer is telling the truth either. Someone that makes a living at stretching the truth isn't going to all of a sudden be truthful because of a lawsuit.

There are plenty of lousy workers who use the law in their favor. She has the incentive to lie because she wants to extort money out of them. No different than women lie in divorce cases to get the house and the children from men. I wouldn't assume the man is bad when the law is overwhelmingly out of his favor.

Loser pay is one step. Those ridiculous laws shouldn't be there at all as I've said before. Either way the evidence wasn't on her side.

What I am asking is - would you like to see loser pay enforced in small claims court? Sometimes the case might be over some trivial amount like $10. The cost of the court would far exceed the amount in question. You might view that as a frivolous law suit, whereas the plaintiff and defendant would view it as an actual problem that needs to be settled.

I only ask because while the large money lawsuits could easily pay for themselves, the small claims could present a huge problem, financially, to the loser.

Interesting discussion.

Well the good thing about a financial adviser is that if you don't like then you aren't forced to use them. I'm forced to deal with the government. The market has a lot of politics in it and many firms and banks are backed by the government and politicians which is a large part of the problem. Not every firm is like that and I wouldn't say most firms are like that. Peter Schiff talks about how unfair the system is against smaller firms and how the government rigs the deck in their favor and most people just go with the flow.

With investing they're trying to predict what happens, and most are going to go with the trend and that hardly makes money anyways.

With the employer-employee scenario it should be neutral, but the employee has a lot more to gain and the employer has a lot more to lose. I'm thinking you're talking about this case in which I don't know what they did wrong (the law is stupid anyways). The problem is the employee is seen as the victim and the employer is seen as the "evil bad guy" even if they're a small employer.

With loser pays, part of the idea is to keep the extortion down. Many of these cases don't make it to court and people settle because they lose even if they win in court because of costs and time. Many businesses are destroyed by these suits or having to waste time and the plantiffs know this. The main defense of not having loser pays is that "it makes it harder to just do a lot of lawsuits".

Exactly. You should be ready to take a risk. That way people will go in situations when they know they're pretty much going to win because it was a clear wrongdoing.