Courtroom Antics & Trial Oddities

[Yithian]

Lost wages are all fair enough, but how on earth do you quantify the emotional distress suffered from a anxiety attacks from being forced to have a birthday party? Of course, there'll be a search for precedent, but who comes up with the initial awards that create those precedents.

While I wouldn't personally foist a celebration on the man—or anybody really—anxiety issues that prevent an employee from interacting normally with fellow staff can only work to the detriment of that person's career prospects; fairly or not, some of your colleagues are going to think you're weird.

 

[ramonmercado]

Lost wages are all fair enough, but how on earth do you quantify the emotional distress suffered from a anxiety attacks from being forced to have a birthday party? Of course, there'll be a search for precedent, but who comes up with the initial awards that create those precedents.

While I wouldn't personally foist a celebration on the man—or anybody really—anxiety issues that prevent an employee from interacting normally with fellow staff can only work to the detriment of that person's career prospects; fairly or not, some of your colleagues are going to think you're weird.

It's not unusual for damages to be awarded for emotional distress and such an award should be even less surprising when the plaintiff suffers from an anxiety disorder. It's likely that psychological/psychiatric reports were submitted to the court.

I'm surprised that he didn't get addition al damages for the misgendering - "being a little girl".

 

[Yithian]

It's not unusual for damages to be awarded for emotional distress and such an award should be even less surprising when the plaintiff suffers from an anxiety disorder. It's likely that psychological/psychiatric reports were submitted to the court.

I know it's not unusual, but I honestly have no idea how any such harm can be quantified in monetary units.

If I have my teeth broken and a big dental bill plus lost wages, I can give you a pretty precise total.

Suffering an acute panic attack is worth... what?

 

[ramonmercado]

I know it's not unusual, but I honestly have no idea how any such harm can be quantified in monetary units.

If I have my teeth broken and a big dental bill plus lost wages, I can give you a pretty precise total.

Suffering an acute panic attack is worth... what?

If your anxiety/depression was significantly affected in a negative manner for a period of time and you have medical reports to back that up then it is possible to estimate a quantum of loss of enjoyment of life. Such quanta are used in court cases when it comes to physical injuries.

 

[Min Bannister]

While I wouldn't personally foist a celebration on the man—or anybody really—anxiety issues that prevent an employee from interacting normally with fellow staff can only work to the detriment of that person's career prospects; fairly or not, some of your colleagues are going to think you're weird.

He doesn't necessarily want career prospects though, maybe he just wants a job and that is all? Employers ought to take reasonable steps to accomodate a disability (I don't know if they are required to do so by law in the US mind you) and avoiding a surprise birthday party when that has been specifically requested seems pretty reasonable to me. I am glad they had to pay out as they sound like bullies to me.

 

[Min Bannister]

There is a photo of what Gravity Diagnostics looks like on the link below. Looks like a) There would be a hell of a lot of surprise birthday parties going on and that could get old quickly and b) There should be a bit of space for one person who is "a bit weird". All IMO of course.

gravitydiagnostics.com/about-gravity/

 

[Yithian]

...it is possible to estimate a quantum of loss of enjoyment of life. Such quanta are used in court cases when it comes to physical injuries.

Clearly it is and they have been, but I don't know how (quick Google wasn't terribly revealing).

He doesn't necessarily want career prospects though, maybe he just wants a job and that is all? Employers ought to take reasonable steps to accomodate a disability (I don't know if they are required to do so by law in the US mind you) and avoiding a surprise birthday party when that has been specifically requested seems pretty reasonable to me. I am glad they had to pay out as they sound like bullies to me.

I agree with most of that.

Employers should take reasonable steps? Of course.

Employers are bullies? Likely given the confrontation in the subsequent meeting. The part when he fled the party should have been a clue that you've miscalculated and probably owe him an apology.

The point at which I resile ever so slightly is that if--and I don't know whether it's the case here--your impediment/disability means you can't really function as a socially normal member of the team, it doesn't seem outrageous to me for an employer to prefer to hire a member of staff who can.

That said, if said impediment was developed during the period of employment, it's morally wrong to dismiss the person.

I do have one personal experience which I consider semi-analogous yet absurd: my former, former employer hired a batch of English language teachers, and it became clear after a fairly short space of time that one of the them could not reliably spell a host of simple words (I saw her classroom whiteboard littered with rudimentary errors). When approached about the need to check and double check such things so as not to impart similar errors her students, this teacher said she was dyslexic.

This had not been mentioned during the recruitment process and was a major impediment to her fulfilling her duties.

 

[Yithian]

There is a photo of what Gravity Diagnostics looks like on the link below. Looks like a) There would be a hell of a lot of surprise birthday parties going on and that could get old quickly and b) There should be a bit of space for one person who is "a bit weird". All IMO of course.

gravitydiagnostics.com/about-gravity/

Happy bunch.

 

[Min Bannister]

Yes, I might be a bit biased but the photo did remind me a bit of participants at an event hosted by Kim Yong Un.

The point at which I resile ever so slightly is that if--and I don't know whether it's the case here--your impediment/disability means you can't really function as a socially normal member of the team, it doesn't seem outrageous to me for an employer to prefer to hire a member of staff who can

I understand that and there are plenty of cases where a person simply can't do a particular job because they are not physically or mentally able. However there is no suggestion here that he couldn't do his job, just that he didn't want a birthday party. I don't think anyone should be or feel forced to socialise outside of work. It may affect the way colleagues see you of course but getting on with the job should be the most important thing really.

Of course it is always possible they were looking for an excuse to get rid of him due to other problems he was causing but I guess we will never know.

 

[gordonrutter]

There is a photo of what Gravity Diagnostics looks like on the link below. Looks like a) There would be a hell of a lot of surprise birthday parties going on and that could get old quickly and b) There should be a bit of space for one person who is "a bit weird". All IMO of course.

gravitydiagnostics.com/about-gravity/

Not as many as you think as statistically two of them will share a birthday!

 

[ramonmercado]

Clearly it is and they have been, but I don't know how (quick Google wasn't terribly revealing).

If you can show that your ability to work and/or enjoy normal activities has been impaired then your claim will advance beyond the initial stages; of course the defendants in the case have the right to have you medically examined by their nominated doctors. If you win then the amount will be determined by the severity of the impairment and how long it's likely to last. Damages for physical injuries are also adjudged on the severity of the impairment and how long it's likely to last.

Again there is absolutely nothing strange about this, outside of the courts systems insurance companies settle claims based on psychiatric/psychological injuries,

This is long established under legislation and case law.

In this particular case the emotional distress damages are twice that of the loss of earnings, that might be due to ongoing problems which have been medically connected to the incident. Again the company would have been free to challenge this.

The level of the damages might also be due to the company coming across as being arrogant.

 

[Mikefule]

I used to be involved in assessing damages. It is an imprecise art based on a sort of communal fiction.

Decades ago, Private Eye magazine was sued by Sonia Sutcliffe, wife of the Yorkshire Ripper. The damages she received for being defamed far exceeded what she would have received if the Editor of Private Eye had run her over and broken both her legs.

Years later, handling liability claims, I came across a case where a funeral director had messed up some funeral arrangements: the grave of a lifelong Roman Catholic had been dug in the church yard of the protestant church on the same road.

I had a long chat with my manager about our opening offer and he finally said "14 or 15 should be about right."

I hesitated then apologised: "I honestly don't know if you mean 14 or 15 hundred, or 14 or 15 thousand."

He also hesitated and admitted, "Neither do I."

 

[Beakmoo]

Lost wages are all fair enough, but how on earth do you quantify the emotional distress suffered from a anxiety attacks from being forced to have a birthday party? Of course, there'll be a search for precedent, but who comes up with the initial awards that create those precedents.

While I wouldn't personally foist a celebration on the man—or anybody really—anxiety issues that prevent an employee from interacting normally with fellow staff can only work to the detriment of that person's career prospects; fairly or not, some of your colleagues are going to think you're weird.

Interacting normally? Who's to say what that is? This was normal for him, he said he didn't want to to do it, they just steamrollered over him. And instead of apologising they antagonise and fire him?! What a crowd of bastards. Socially anxious and neurodiverse people have a right to work on their terms, and if people think they're weird they can just put up with it and stop being ablest. ☹

 

[Shady]

Do what I used to do on my birthday, plan the day off in advance.

 

[escargot]

Interacting normally? Who's to say what that is? This was normal for him, he said he didn't want to to do it, they just steamrollered over him. And instead of apologising they antagonise and fire him?! What a crowd of bastards. Socially anxious and neurodiverse people have a right to work on their terms, and if people think they're weird they can just put up with it and stop being ablest. ☹

Yup, he made it clear he didn't want it but was subjected to it anyway. Someone should've got that cake in the face.

 

[Yithian]

Interacting normally? Who's to say what that is? This was normal for him...

I wasn't using the term in a moral sense; I meant normal as adhering to the norms of the community in the office i.e. if everybody else has a birthday 'party' with the irksome rituals that accompany it (I have some experience here), then he was not acting normally.

"Normal for him" would mean usual or typical for him—in line with his regular behaviour—which is only really useful if you are a hermit.

 

[escargot]

I wasn't using the term in a moral sense; I meant normal as adhering to the norms of the community in the office i.e. if everybody else has a birthday 'party' with the irksome rituals that accompany it (I have some experience here), then he was not acting normally.

"Normal for him" would mean usual or typical for him—in line with his regular behaviour—which is only really useful if you are a hermit.

Not at all. He's not a hermit. He did his job perfectly well while expressing a preference for not being fussed over on his birthday but was summarily overruled.
You're wrong, the court says so: $450,000 worth of wrong, in fact.

 

[Yithian]

Not at all. He's not a hermit. He did his job perfectly well while expressing a preference for not being fussed over on his birthday but was summarily overruled.
You're wrong, the court says so: $450,000 worth of wrong, in fact.

Did you read my post?

I am not making a legal argument, and I didn't say he was a hermit.

I'm discussing the situation.

This is a discussion board.

 

[escargot]

Did you read my post?

I am not making a legal argument, and I didn't say he was a hermit.

I'm discussing the situation.

This is a discussion board.

Yes I did read it. You said "Normal for him" would mean usual or typical for him—in line with his regular behaviour—which is only really useful if you are a hermit.
This means that his regular behaviour is hermit-like. You called him a hermit, or near as dammit did, which in legal terms is the same and might have been worth another few thousand dollars if his manager had said it of him.

 

[Yithian]

Yes I did read it. You said "Normal for him" would mean usual or typical for him—in line with his regular behaviour—which is only really useful if you are a hermit.
This means that his regular behaviour is hermit-like. You called him a hermit, or near as dammit did, which in legal terms is the same and might have been worth another few thousand dollars if his manager had said it of him.

No.

I meant that to define 'normal' as behaving in a typical fashion for oneself makes little sense for a member of a species that is practically defined by the complexity of its social interactions.

A hermit is defined as one who sequesters himself from society: one who has no social interactions.

Hence, it would only make sense to call a man normal because he is behaving in accordance with his own normal behaviour if said man existed Crusoe-like beyond society. Within human society, normality, if it means anything, means adhering to social norms.

If I routinely chewed off the tails of cats and covered my whole body with shaving foam, the fact that it was 'normal for me', would not make me normal.

I wasn't calling him a hermit—that makes no sense. I'm also not attaching any moral value to normality; societal beliefs are often profoundly wrong and harmful to their members.

Edit: I'm confused by the 'laughing' reactions. I fancy I can manage some decent humour, but I've not tried that here.

 

[escargot]

No.

I meant that to define 'normal' as behaving in a typical fashion for oneself makes little sense for a member of a species that is practically defined by the complexity of its social interactions.

A hermit is defined as one who sequesters himself from society: one who has no social interactions.

Hence, it would only make sense to call a man normal because he is behaving in accordance with his own normal behaviour if said man existed Crusoe-like beyond society. Within human society, normality, if it means anything, means adhering to social norms.

If I routinely chewed off the tails of cats and covered my whole body with shaving foam, the fact that it was 'normal for me', would not make me normal.

I wasn't calling him a hermit—that makes no sense. I'm also not attaching any moral value to normality; societal beliefs are often profoundly wrong and harmful to their members.

Edit: I'm confused by the 'laughing' reactions. I fancy I can manage some decent humour, but I've not tried that here.

All he did was ask not have a birthday party. You were saying that this behaviour, which is 'normal for him', would only be any good to a hermit.
That is what makes no sense, unless you meant to imply that only hermits don't have birthday parties and therefore that anyone who dislikes them is a hermit.

There were no other complaints about his work or conduct, just that he reacted badly to being expected to endure the party.
He was afterwards insulted for this instead of being offered an apology which would have been cheaper in the long run.


"Normal for him" would mean usual or typical for him—in line with his regular behaviour—which is only really useful if you are a hermit.

 

[Yithian]

All he did was ask not have a birthday party. You were saying that this behaviour, which is 'normal for him', would only be any good to a hermit.
That is what makes no sense, unless you meant to imply that only hermits don't have birthday parties and therefore that anyone who dislikes them is a hermit.

There were no other complaints about his work or conduct, just that he reacted badly to being expected to endure the party.
He was afterwards insulted for this instead of being offered an apology which would have been cheaper in the long run.


"Normal for him" would mean usual or typical for him—in line with his regular behaviour—which is only really useful if you are a hermit.

I don't understand your post.

My posts and clarification stand for anybody to read.

I'm content to leave it at that.

 

[Cochise]

Yes, I might be a bit biased but the photo did remind me a bit of participants at an event hosted by Kim Yong Un.



I understand that and there are plenty of cases where a person simply can't do a particular job because they are not physically or mentally able. However there is no suggestion here that he couldn't do his job, just that he didn't want a birthday party. I don't think anyone should be or feel forced to socialise outside of work. It may affect the way colleagues see you of course but getting on with the job should be the most important thing really.

Of course it is always possible they were looking for an excuse to get rid of him due to other problems he was causing but I guess we will never know.

I had a colleague who was intensely private and regarded any mention of his personal details - even his birthday - as a breach of confidence. I could imagine that if someone had arranged a birthday party for him (HR would have known the date) he'd have reacted the same or even more drastically.

In other respects he was a perfectly acceptable and competent employee - perhaps slightly OCD - didn't like normal routine or plans being disturbed. Would get to work late if something happened that caused his normal routine to take longer, rather than cutting corners and making haste as most of us would. But for a software engineer this is no more than mild eccentricity. I can see in different jobs that would be a bigger problem.

 

[Coal]

I had a colleague who was intensely private and regarded any mention of his personal details - even his birthday - as a breach of confidence. I could imagine that if someone had arranged a birthday party for him (HR would have known the date) he'd have reacted the same or even more drastically.

In other respects he was a perfectly acceptable and competent employee - perhaps slightly OCD - didn't like normal routine or plans being disturbed. Would get to work late if something happened that caused his normal routine to take longer, rather than cutting corners and making haste as most of us would. But for a software engineer this is no more than mild eccentricity. I can see in different jobs that would be a bigger problem.

Current employer allow you to opt out of 'public' birthdays and company cards etc. I opted out, a colleague also does this, but takes the day off for good measure. His reason are his reasons, but for myself, I'm counting down not up and have no desire to be reminded with a fanfare.

 

[Herr Cloaca]

Idiot sues for £33.3 quadrillion

Sayed Sangamneheri who has ‘repeatedly advanced baseless allegations of dishonesty and bad faith’ in a litany of claims has been banned from bringing claims in the High Court for two years.

Patricia Robertson QC, sitting as a High Court judge said
It is, quite frankly, in his own interests that he be restrained if he is incapable (as it seems) of restraining himself, since the only result of these repeated attempts at litigating these matters is that he is incurring ever greater liabilities for costs.

Mr Sangamneheri's previous litigations have been described as “totally without merit,” “patently unsupported,” “plainly hopeless,” “increasingly bizarre,” and “so absurd as to require no further comment.”

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/3...gant-given-two-year-court-ban/5112206.article

 

[ramonmercado]

An interesting case.

The last thing you'd expect when you bring your car to a shop to get an oil change is to be served with a lawsuit.

But that's what happened to a car owner who dropped his car off at the Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge dealership in Michigan. An 18-year-old mechanic got in the car and drove over his 42-year-old boss, Jeffrey Hawkins, killing him.

Very sad, but here's where the story gets weird. Hawkins' family is suing the owner of the car for damages. The attorney for the family explained that it is not possible for them to sue the dealership, so they are going after the car owner instead, even though the owner had nothing to do with Hawkins' death.

https://boingboing.net/2022/05/05/b...-kills-boss-with-car-car-owner-gets-sued.html

 

[Mythopoeika]

An interesting case.

The last thing you'd expect when you bring your car to a shop to get an oil change is to be served with a lawsuit.

But that's what happened to a car owner who dropped his car off at the Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge dealership in Michigan. An 18-year-old mechanic got in the car and drove over his 42-year-old boss, Jeffrey Hawkins, killing him.

Very sad, but here's where the story gets weird. Hawkins' family is suing the owner of the car for damages. The attorney for the family explained that it is not possible for them to sue the dealership, so they are going after the car owner instead, even though the owner had nothing to do with Hawkins' death.

https://boingboing.net/2022/05/05/b...-kills-boss-with-car-car-owner-gets-sued.html

Any court or judge with any sense would throw that case out.

 

[Herr Cloaca]

Any court or judge with any sense would throw that case out.

America.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Any court or judge with any sense would throw that case out.

Maybe that's the point - having a judge render a ruling that provides a solid basis for overcoming whatever legal barrier prevents the deceased employee's family from suing the dealership.

I can think of two possible explanations for the dealership's ability to dodge being sued directly for liability. One is having defined its technicians as self-employed contractors rather than employees. The other concerns fine print on whatever work order the customer signed when authorizing the work and turning over the vehicle to the dealership.

The most obviously missing angle concerns the 18-year-old employee who ran over Hawkins. Why didn't the family's attorney go after him first? Or did they do so already?

 

[Ronnie Jersey]

The most obviously missing angle concerns the 18-year-old employee who ran over Hawkins. Why didn't the family's attorney go after him first? Or did they do so already?

That's exactly what I was thinking - but of course, how much could they possibly obtain in compensation from an 18 year old, unless he is wealthy.