I am sure they are very happy with the decisions they made. I am also sure that the schools that kicked them to the curb are also happy with the decisions they made. Win win.
Virginia Tech Lawsuit
- Thread starter Surf Zombie
- Start date
I am sure they are very happy with the decisions they made. I am also sure that the schools that kicked them to the curb are also happy with the decisions they made. Win win.
Based on your responses, I'm fairly certain that you don't fully understand the concept of irony. You actually have some decent takes on things when you use your brain and not your emotions. Unfortunately, its hard to tell through all the smoke of the faux outrage and the angry troll act. If you dialed it back a bit, people might take you more seriously. Good luck.
The other angle is that the settlement was small because actual damages were likely to be small.
$100k is, unfortunately, disturbingly close to lifetime soccer earnings for a mid-tier NWSL player. Even with a strong case, there is a limit to how much you might actually recover.
I don't doubt that that could have been a factor on the plaintiffs side, particularly since she prevailed at summary judgment, but was willing to except something much less than $100k after attorney fees. Effectively both sides made an economic decision unrelated to the liability considerations in the matter.
MacDre
PREMIER
I doubt it. Lost earnings seems to speculative to me as there’s no guarantee that she could get signed anywhere. I’d think if she’d prevail in front of a jury her damages would be from pain and suffering/emotional distress.
Thanks for the complement and the tip.
The long and the short of it is there has never been a time when people just "agreed to disagree", there was only a time where many people kept quiet due to force or fear. Claiming otherwise is a ludicrous way to rationalize how you and others just don't like the fact that there are repercussions for abysmal behavior that did not previously exist. It is a ludicrous way to try to minimize very real problems in our society that you just don't want to deal with or that aren't important to you. In fact, "cancel culture" is just a fancy phrase that people use when they're upset about repercussions being faced by those with whom they share what are often some abysmal beliefs. Those who claim that boycotting Chik-fil-a due to its abysmal position on gay rights is part of "cancel culture" don't consider all of their protests and attempts to deny Planned Parenthood funding is "cancel culture". Those who claim that JK Rowling was the "victim" of cancel culture due to her positions on trans people don't consider their attempts to ban youth soccer clubs and leagues from being able to set their own rules for trans participation constitutes "cancel culture". Those who believe that boycotts of Fox News advertisers constitutes "cancel culture" don't look at their own abandonment of the USWNT because Rapinoe used to kneel as "cancel culture".
If you're going to support a position on something, just own it instead of whining that you don't get to say and do whatever you want without consequences or criticism. Those who criticize others for abysmal commentary have just as much right to speak up as those who engaged in the abysmal commentary in the first place. Criticizing someone for anti-semitic, or racist, or misogynistic comments is no more "canceling" than what the person who makes or supports the anti-semitic, or racist, or homophobic, or misogynistic comments is trying to do to the group they're trying to suppress.
Excellent points counselor.
The courts have limited the emotional distress damages you can recover in a 1983 claim (starting with Carey) and there's a bit of a split in the circuits over how to treat them (there's a good text by Sanders & Lewis). Similarly Smith severely limited punitive damages (shorthanding here but it's a callous indifference standard and you can go against the individual but not the entity). Regardless of the split, the causation standard for damages is very very high and a lot of times in these case you only get nominal damages (the reason attorneys still accept the case is because in 1983 you can recover attorneys fees...the news reports don't say if the settlement was before or after attorneys fees as far as I can tell...but it sets up an unusual dynamic where the client might want to settle (for fear of getting nominal damages) but the attorney wants to continue (to get the fees)).
Do you think a large settlement from pain and suffering was at all likely? I have a hard time imagining 500k for being benched and yelled at by a coach, but this is all well outside my wheelhouse.
Or are you just saying that even if pain and suffering are small, they’re still bigger than speculating about lost income?
ok. Prove me wrong and I’ll apologize.
MacDre
PREMIER
The latter. Even if we assume she could prove liability, her damages case was horrible. As @Grace T. mentioned up thread, her damages for proving liability are $1.
If I had to speculate, I think the fact that she used the Ku Klux Klan Act to pursue her claim pissed a college administrator off; keep in mind that KKK also stands for Kikes, Koons, and Katholics so, this claim could have been offensive to Jews and Catholics as well as Blacks. I think some administrator was willing to spend whatever it cost to get her in a video deposition and depose her for hours to ruin her life forever.
BUT, I think a rich conservative donor (probably an old tobacco farmer) called the Director of Development and threatened not to donate that building if the University didn’t fix the situation in favor of this young lady.
She had no damages. It’s not like she quit soccer, dropped out of school, is in therapy, and working part time at the local Piggly Wiggly because she developed a meth habit from the trauma on the soccer team an is now incapable of holding down a full time job.
Wow Dre, I learn so much from you. TGIFF!!!
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Impressive specifics.
That’s a heck of a jump. A legal hothead wants to spend whatever it takes to ruin her? If true, it says something awful about government lawyers.
What’s wrong with the simpler theory that 100K was cheaper than the legal cost of defending it? Try to a summary judgment to win it cheap. When you lose that, settle quick.
MacDre
PREMIER
My bad, let me explain a little more. If we were talking about having to pay a private law firm by the hour things could get expensive. But, we are talking about government lawyers here that are already getting pay and benefits-I guess you could argue there would be “opportunity cost,” but I don’t think that’s compelling.
Governments also have policies of vigorously defending Sec 1983 & Bivens cases. How expensive do you think it would be for State and Federal governments if the word got out that they are sweet as bear meat and are handing out 100k settlements to plaintiffs lawyers that file claims under 1983 or Bivens?
The VA AG is the son of a Cuban immigrant so, it’s possible he’s Catholic or sympathetic to their issues.
The proof is everywhere, in one study after the next, but you are clearly the type of person for whom proof doesn't matter. I see people like you all the time. You'll claim black people deserve the higher rates of police brutality because they cause more crime. You'll deny the legitimacy of every study because that is what people like you do. There is no amount of overwhelming proof that will convince you of anything.
If you think VA Tech paying $100k to Karen is proof that VA Tech acted illegally, how do you explain $27 million for the family of George Floyd? $6.4 for Fredie Gray? $3.8 for Philando Castile? $6 million Tamir Rice? $4.1 Akai Gurley? $1.5 Michael Brown? $6 million Eric Garner? $5 million Javier Amber? $2.9 million Anjanette Young? $2.5 Keita O'Neil; $3.5 million Charleena Lyles; $7.5 million Anthony McClain? $15 million Elijah McClain? $2.5 million Walter Wallace? And so on...
How do you explain how the vast majority of the almost $1.5 billion that the po po have paid out in recent years to settle civil rights claims involving the people they murder goes to people who are black despite only 13 percent of the population? Is it because the white folk who got shot by the piggies almost always do have it coming, but a high percentage of everyone else doesn't?
OK…show me the studies. I’m inviting you to educate me, not make up shit about me in attempt to insult me.
Good luck getting anything concrete from him..he didn't answer anything I asked either. Just pot-stirring bs. @espola hitting the "like" button on a bunch of posts by @SurFutbol tells you all you need to know. I'm surprised @Hüsker Dü isn't in here hitting the "like" button as well.
On the other hand, it's hard to be quieter than the likes of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor since they're dead.
So you're saying that white people should not support civil rights? Or are you saying they shouldn't support civil rights more than you deem appropriate? Can you please explain to the rest of us what is and isn't "too much" civil rights support from a white person? I take it that kneeling is too much, but white people whining about people who kneel is fine even though they aren't victims of anything besides hurt feelings that other people disagree with their belief that America is perfect?
Is it "too much" when people whine about trans girls being allowed to play with other girls when their kid has never lost a minute of playing time, let alone a game, to a trans girl? Or is crying like a baby that a U13 trans girl was allowed to play with other girls just the right amount of whininess?