NationStates Jolt Archive

... so I can also win 19 million in damages.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/251438.html

A jury Thursday awarded $19.1 million to former Fresno State women's basketball coach Stacy Johnson-Klein in a verdict that was stunning as much for its speed as its size.

After eight weeks of testimony in Johnson-Klein's sexual discrimination trial, the jury of 11 women and one man needed less than four hours of deliberations to unanimously decide the university had discriminated and retaliated against her.

The jurors embraced her lawyers' explanation for her firing nearly three years ago: She's a woman, she was an unrelenting champion of women's equality and Fresno State couldn't tolerate such an employee.

"Vindicated," Johnson-Klein said of her reaction to the jury's verdict while standing in a hall at Fresno County Superior Court. "... For women in general, I think it's a victory to see that there's a justice system in America. You can use it. It's long. It's hard. It's not for the weak of heart. But it works."

Fresno State President John Welty said in a statement: "This fundamentally has always been an employment case. The university will always act when the health and welfare of its students is endangered.

"I disagree with the decision. We will appeal. But we are determined not to be distracted by it and will continue with the essential work of the university. I am personally committed, and this university is committed, to the well-being of all our students."

In his Fulton Mall office an hour after the verdict, Fresno State lawyer Mick Marderosian said he was upset with the verdict.

"I'm embarrassed for my community and for my hometown," Marderosian said.

Thursday's verdict was the third time in five months that the central San Joaquin Valley's largest institution of higher learning suffered an expensive and high-profile blow to its reputation for gender equity.

In July, former volleyball coach Lindy Vivas' sexual discrimination trial ended in a $5.85 million verdict, later reduced to $4.52 million. And in October, the university settled the sexual discrimination lawsuit of former associate athletic director Diane Milutinovich for $3.5 million.

Johnson-Klein lawyer Warren Paboojian said Johnson-Klein several weeks before the trial offered to settle her case for $950,000, but the university's top offer was $550,000.

As eye-opening as the Vivas judgment and Milutinovich settlement were, neither came close to matching the jaw-dropping shock of Thursday's verdict.

The jury was charged with answering yes or no to nine questions, ranging from whether Johnson-Klein was a victim of gender discrimination to whether she was sexually harassed because she's a woman.

In the hushed courtroom of Judge Donald S. Black, the court clerk read the jury's decision: Yes.

Nine times.

Johnson-Klein responded with a barely perceptible cry after each affirmative answer.

Then the court clerk read the damages.

Economic losses from Johnson-Klein's firing on March 2, 2005, to the trial's start: $634,254.

Future economic losses if she hadn't been fired: $4,440,419.

Noneconomic suffering from the date of the firing to the trial's start: $3 million.

Noneconomic suffering Johnson-Klein will suffer for the rest of her life: $11 million.

Total: $19,074,673.

A bailiff had warned spectators against making any sound when the verdict was read, but the size of these figures overwhelmed the reticence of many Johnson-Klein supporters. Their gasps and the creaking of benches as they shook a neighbor's hand or patted a loved one's back drifted across the courtroom.

Theres two more pages to the article, but that sums most of it up.

First of all, this woman was a total flake. This can be evidenced by the various testimony from her players, most of which have no reason to lie. The university would probably have been justified in firing her just for some of the things that have been brought up.

Secondly, it is quite likely that this flake was treated differently than the various male flakes the athletics department has. She might have even been legitimately harassed. Firing her to cover this up is *not* legitimate. She had cause to sue the university for that.

Thirdly, while she may have had cause to win the suit (which I'm not 100% sure of since I haven't been following this case every day), the "damages" she was awarded are wholly and completely excessive. Even before the trial she offered to settle for slightly less than a million, and awarding the woman $19 million is ridiculous. Not to mention that the money will come out of my tuition...

Feminazi...

Appeal-tiem!

I hope someone attractive harasses me:cool: ah yeah

19 million is entirely excessive, especially since none of this was punitives.

... so I can also win 19 million in damages.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/251438.html



Theres two more pages to the article, but that sums most of it up.

First of all, this woman was a total flake. This can be evidenced by the various testimony from her players, most of which have no reason to lie. The university would probably have been justified in firing her just for some of the things that have been brought up.

Secondly, it is quite likely that this flake was treated differently than the various male flakes the athletics department has. She might have even been legitimately harassed. Firing her to cover this up is *not* legitimate. She had cause to sue the university for that.

Thirdly, while she may have had cause to win the suit (which I'm not 100% sure of since I haven't been following this case every day), the "damages" she was awarded are wholly and completely excessive. Even before the trial she offered to settle for slightly less than a million, and awarding the woman $19 million is ridiculous. Not to mention that the money will come out of my tuition...

Sounds like the university should have settled this one. On the note of the damages, I can completely understand these two awards:

Economic losses from Johnson-Klein's firing on March 2, 2005, to the trial's start: $634,254.

Future economic losses if she hadn't been fired: $4,440,419.

The other two damage awards, I'm not so sure about.

11 women and one man jury?

LOL.. What is the name of the moron Lawyer representing Fresno University?
If he was OJ's Lawyer.. OJ would have been declared guilty and executed in a heartbeat.

Merry Christmas Stacy, dont expend it all in one weekend.. and repeat after me Only-in-america :D

19 million is entirely excessive, especially since none of this was punitives.

????

How can you say that? That's what the jury awarded. Given the breakdown, I don't imagine that they pulled this figure out of thin air. Moreover, I am prepared to bet that it is less that the ad damnum.

Hm. I wonder what her evidence was.

Wow....11 women and one man? Am I the only one who thought that the Jury was a bit biased, whats your opinion on the Jury Neo? The fact that it was 11 women and one man?

????

How can you say that? That's what the jury awarded. Given the breakdown, I don't imagine that they pulled this figure out of thin air. Moreover, I am prepared to bet that it is less that the ad damnum.

what do you mean how can I say that? I just did. The amount the jury awarded is, in my opinion, excessive. The fact that they awarded it doesn't make it not excessive.

The jury said that the emotional and mental anguish that she suffered, and will continue to suffer, as a result of these events, is worth fourteen million dollars. 14 million. for harassment.

That is excessive.

Wow....11 women and one man? Am I the only one who thought that the Jury was a bit biased, whats your opinion on the Jury Neo? The fact that it was 11 women and one man?

an unusual breakdown but that does not mean, necessarily, that it is biased. If anything it was more likely to be biased, but not biased necessarily.

an unusual breakdown but that does not mean, necessarily, that it is biased. If anything it was more likely to be biased, but not biased necessarily.

Ok, I do not know the legal term, but could the University appeal on ground that the Jury wasn't fair, and or just?

That is excessive.

Bah. You're just upset you're not walking away with 1/3 of it. Admit it. :p

Bah. You're just upset you're not walking away with 1/3 of it. Admit it. :p

hah, well, I doubt this will stand in its entirety on appeal

Ok, I do not know the legal term, but could the University appeal on ground that the Jury wasn't fair, and or just?

the short answer is "no". There is a methodology that goes into the selection of a jury, called voir dire. As long as the general process was adhered to, the prospective jurors were pooled from a representative sample of the community, that they were properly questioned, that both attornies were given the chance to adequately view the prospective jurors...the fact that it ended up 11 women isn't really a grounds for appeal. The fact that it turned out that way doesn't necessarily mean that there is grounds for appeal.

the short answer is "no". There is a methodology that goes into the selection of a jury, called voir dire. As long as the general process was adhered to, the prospective jurors were pooled from a representative sample of the community, that they were properly questioned, that both attornies were given the chance to adequately view the prospective jurors...the fact that it ended up 11 women isn't really a grounds for appeal. The fact that it turned out that way doesn't necessarily mean that there is grounds for appeal.

What would be grounds for appeal then? Because 19 million? 14 million for mental and emotional damages? I'm actually in agreement with you, but for me, it would have to be, how do you measure mental and emotional damage?

Outrageously excessive award, jury of idiots.

11 crazy idiot woman and one deranged man on the jury... it sounds like the unjustly enriched woman's newly enriched lawyer did a much better job at jury selection than the university's.

what do you mean how can I say that? I just did. The amount the jury awarded is, in my opinion, excessive. The fact that they awarded it doesn't make it not excessive.

The jury said that the emotional and mental anguish that she suffered, and will continue to suffer, as a result of these events, is worth fourteen million dollars. 14 million. for harassment.

That is excessive.

So you sat through the trial and heard all the evidence before you came up with that conclusion?

What would be grounds for appeal then? Because 19 million? 14 million for mental and emotional damages? I'm actually in agreement with you, but for me, it would have to be, how do you measure mental and emotional damage?

you can appeal an amount as excessive. What you do is basically show what other juries have awarded in similar circumstances, as well as circumstances in which a similar amount had been awarded.

if you can show that similar circumstances merited an award of say..2 million, and cases that involved non economic damages of 14 million involved things like...the torture and death of a child, the loss of limbs, or other things equally horrific, you can demonstrate that juries have found this type of thing worth considerably less, and things that WERE worth that amount, were considerably more horrendous.

Outrageously excessive award, jury of idiots.

11 crazy idiot woman and one deranged man on the jury... it sounds like the unjustly enriched woman's newly enriched lawyer did a much better job at jury selection than the university's.

The man was probably nagged to death until he agreed. hehe

I'll go away now.

So you sat through the trial and heard all the evidence before you came up with that conclusion?

don't have to. Have sat through enough trials, heard enough verdicts. It's something we call "experience".

For example, an innocent man who sat in prison for THIRTY YEARS, 10 of them on death row before the state abolished it, after he was framed by the FBI received 10 million dollars in economic AND non economic damages. I am familiar with enough cases to know as a general idea what certain kinds of suffering is worth.

I know her life was never in danger. Nor was the life of her family and loved ones. She was never falsely imprisoned. Never kidnapped, never faced death. She was harassed and wrongfully fired. Bad things to be sure, but in the heirarchy of suffering, it ranks rather low.

don't have to. Have sat through enough trials, heard enough verdicts. It's something we call "experience".


Good: so we can dispense with the tedious trial process and just ask you for a verdict.

Anyway, weren't you a hotshot banking lawyer last week? So isn't this a bit of a departure for you to claim that you have lots of experience in PI trials? Or does your law firm lend you out to ambulance chasers as needed?

Good: so we can dispense with the tedious trial process and just ask you for a verdict.

Anyway, weren't you a hotshot banking lawyer last week? So isn't this a bit of a departure for you to claim that you have lots of experience in PI trials? Or does your law firm lend you out to ambulance chasers as needed?

I'm sure when he was studying to be a Lawyer, he has to familiarize himself with all aspect of the law. I mean I'm studying to be an OT, which mainly deals with Kinesiology, Muscles and bones. However, I had to study other parts of the body as well, like the Urinary Tract System, the Endocrine System, the Nervous System, you get the drift.

Good: so we can dispense with the tedious trial process and just ask you for a verdict.

Not at all, after all, she still needs to prove the facts more likely that not. Having done that, I can evaluate the facts of those circumstances and, based on my experience, can decide, for myself, what her damages merit. While true, I am not on the jury, and my opinion has no legal weight, I certainly have enough background knowledge on the subject to form one, based on the information I know.

Anyway, weren't you a hotshot banking lawyer last week? So isn't this a bit of a departure for you to claim that you have lots of experience in PI trials? Or does your law firm lend you out to ambulance chasers as needed?

This is fairly complicated, but I hope you can stay with me.

You see, banking lawyers, prior to becoming banking lawyers, do this process called "law school". And when they're at "law school" they take a thing called "torts class". And while attending "torts class" they discuss these entities called "lawsuits". Additionally, those at "law school" (let's call them, for the sake of simplicity, "law students") also often attend "trial practice".

Also many "law students" after they stop being "law students" do these things called "clerkships" and become "clerks". While they are "clerks" they work for people called "judges". And those "judges" do things called "trials". And these "clerks" help the "judges" on these "trials".

So yes, I don't do PI work, but I was a "law student" at "law school" where I took "trial practice" and "torts", and, after "law school" I was a "clerk" working for a "judge" doing work on "trials".

I also did "internships" for "firms" which included, yes, personal injury work.

This is fairly complicated, but I hope you can stay with me.

You see, banking lawyers, prior to becoming banking lawyers, do this process called "law school". And when they're at "law school" they take a thing called "torts class". And while attending "torts class" they discuss these entities called "lawsuits". Additionally, those at "law school" (let's call them, for the sake of simplicity, "law students") also often attend "trial practice".

Also many "law students" after they stop being "law students" do these things called "clerkships" and become "clerks". While they are "clerks" they work for people called "judges". And those "judges" do things called "trials". And these "clerks" help the "judges" on these "trials".

So yes, I don't do PI work, but I was a "law student" at "law school" where I took "trial practice" and "torts", and, after "law school" I was a "clerk" working for a "judge" doing work on "trials".

I also did "internships" for "firms" which included, yes, personal injury work.

Dick. Most PI actions last longer that the clerks. Well done on the bullshit however.

Dick. Most PI actions last longer that the clerks. Well done on the bullshit however.

um, ok then. The average civil trial length in federal district court from jury selection to verdict is about one week to 10 days. In fact, let's even look at the article itself:

After eight weeks of testimony in Johnson-Klein's sexual discrimination trial, the jury of 11 women and one man needed less than four hours of deliberations to unanimously decide the university had discriminated and retaliated against her.


A clerkship lasts a year. In my case, I was a clerk for two, first at the district court level, and again at the appellate level.

But, you know, do keep on trying to pretend what you are talking about.

um, ok then. The average civil trial length in federal district court from jury selection to verdict is about one week. A clerkship lasts a year. In my case, I was a clerk for two, first at the district court level, and again at the appellate level.

But, you know, do keep on trying to pretend what you are talking about.

Sometimes I like reading your post Neo. :)

and while yes, the ACTION might take many years, most of that is serving discovery, waiting on discovery documents, medical exams, negotiation, filing of discovery motions, motions to dismiss, cross claim motions, interpleader motions in the case of insurance companies, waiting for ruling on those motions, appealing rulings on motions, waiting for lawyers to finish other cases, conferences, and a whole slew of other crap, the actual trial tends to last about...a week, two weeks. Eight weeks here is fairly long, but not unheard of.

And while the actions will drag on, the verdict, which is what we're talking about here, after all, is based only on evidence delivered at trial. All the random crap that takes up years doesn't affect the verdict, it doesn't go into the verdict, the jury never even hears about it. The verdict is based only on evidence from trial, and, again, once the jury is selected, a trial doesn't tend to last terribly long for the most part.

And yes, while year long clerks tend not to see the entirety of a case from initial filing to verdict, when it comes to seeing out a trial. from jury selection to jury verdict, and all the evidence presented at trial (again, all the crap that comes before doesn't really pertain to a jury verdict) a clerk tends to see that many, many times over.

Outrageously excessive award, jury of idiots.

11 crazy idiot woman and one deranged man on the jury... it sounds like the unjustly enriched woman's newly enriched lawyer did a much better job at jury selection than the university's.

I assume you have the same thing to say about those 12 men who decided not too long ago that a stripper couldn't be sexually harassed or raped no matter what?

Dick. Most PI actions last longer that the clerks. Well done on the bullshit however.

Why would you post something like that?

I assume you have the same thing to say about those 12 men who decided not too long ago that a stripper couldn't be sexually harassed or raped no matter what?

For your information, and to clarify some bizarre assumptions you seem to make and operate on, I would by no means say such a jury was composed of eleven crazy idiot women and one deranged man.

Personally I'm of the opinion that the amounts of money that people can get out of lawsuits in the States are ridiculous in general, period.

That's one reason why I'd like to visit the States - get some small injury at some big chain store and sue them for hundreds of thousands of dollars, LOL. :p

As for your thread's headline... think twice. :(

Why would you post something like that?

Because this is NSG and some people feel the need to verbally attack their opponent after losing an argument with facts. :D

But, you know, do keep on trying to pretend what you are talking about.

Oh grow up. If it was that bad there would have been a JNOV. Since there wasn't then you are going to have to find some sort of error for the verdict to be modified. Just saying it's 'too big' won't work.

Why would you post something like that?

Because people are claiming knowledge that they really don't have.

Because people are claiming knowledge that they really don't have.

Thats exactly what you're doing, isn't it?

One aspect of the large award is that she is going to have a lot of trouble getting another job in her field. No organization would want that kind of baggage.

On the other hand, unless the state picks up the tab, I'm not sure the school could afford to continue it's existence.

Thats exactly what you're doing, isn't it?

No. I actually have a law degree, and have also passed the NYS bar. (Albeit it a secondary thing in my life and more for fun).

????

How can you say that? That's what the jury awarded. Given the breakdown, I don't imagine that they pulled this figure out of thin air. Moreover, I am prepared to bet that it is less that the ad damnum.

Non economic suffering =$11 million. What, her psychological damage? That is a figure pulled out of the air. They should take that from her and give it to someone who really needs it.

How can we continue to function if everyone who gets fired claims discrimination and gets awarded $19 million?

A judge probably reduce the figure on appeal, in the same way a judge reduced the award for the woman who burned her crotch with McDonald's coffee.

/snipHey sexy, is that package for me? ;)

No. I actually have a law degree, and have also passed the NYS bar. (Albeit it a secondary thing in my life and more for fun).

It looked to me like you were implying that neo art had not seen PI trials, as he claimed, as a clerk by claiming that the duration of a clerkship wasn't long enough to see entire PI actions.

Assuming that you meant to be honest and forthright about what you were implying, then you must either not have understand what he said about trials and made a mistake in posting that, or else not understood the difference between trials and actions.

If you both understood what he wrote and indeed did know the difference between trials and actions, then you posted it deliberately to be misleading to people, which is neither honest nor forthright and speaks to a deficit of integrity.

If you are given the benefit of the doubt concerning your integrity, then the conclusion one comes to is that you were posting about something you didn't understand, hence my perplexity and humble inquiry.

For your information, and to clarify some bizarre assumptions you seem to make and operate on, I would by no means say such a jury was composed of eleven crazy idiot women and one deranged man.

Well what would you say about those 12 men then? I'm curious as to the primary reasons and motivations for your statements.

Sounds like the university should have settled this one.

I can somewhat see where the university's coming from in this instance... Right or Wrong, most people see a settlement outside of court a confession of guilt (ie., "Let's not go TOO public with this, how's a million bucks sound?). But unfortunately, it seems that many cases of "unfairness" in this country end in lawsuit.

... so I can also win 19 million in damages.

.

So......what are you wearin?? (I thought this would be a good start to your pursuit of 19 mil..)

11 women and one man jury?

Yeah, sounds like that one time I went to go "meet some of" my girlfriends friends. If I'd a known it was gonna be an interrogation I woulda brought my waterboarding suit.

Ridiculous. Someone needs to put this bitch in her place. :)

Well what would you say about those 12 men then? I'm curious as to the primary reasons and motivations for your statements.

The primary motivation is the grossly excessive amount of money awarded.

If you'd like my opinion on the other case you can make a thread about it, post a news article, invite the resident internet lawyers and real lawyers of NSG, let them say their peace, let me read it, and then I'll consider writing something and posting it.

Until then, I'd like to do my utmost to, you know, stick to the topic at hand.

Good: so we can dispense with the tedious trial process and just ask you for a verdict.

Anyway, weren't you a hotshot banking lawyer last week? So isn't this a bit of a departure for you to claim that you have lots of experience in PI trials? Or does your law firm lend you out to ambulance chasers as needed?

Dick. Most PI actions last longer that the clerks. Well done on the bullshit however.

Because people are claiming knowledge that they really don't have.

No. I actually have a law degree, and have also passed the NYS bar. (Albeit it a secondary thing in my life and more for fun).

So someone doing law for kicks knows more than someone doing it for a living? Really, Ld, you oughta know better, especially the flame.

why is it so hard to believe that the jury found the treatment of the plaintif so egregious that they felt compelled to award her an enormous amount of money after an extremely short deliberation?

that indicates to ME, who has not heard the evidence, that she must have had a very strong case.

why is it so hard to believe that the jury found the treatment of the plaintif so egregious that they felt compelled to award her an enormous amount of money after an extremely short deliberation?

that indicates to ME, who has not heard the evidence, that she must have had a very strong case.

It's probably the grossly excessive amount of money she was awarded. What could have been so discrimatory and harrassing that she should get $19 million? I probably couldn't get that if a corporation chopped off my legs and I sued them and won.

It's probably the grossly excessive amount of money she was awarded. What could have been so discrimatory and harrassing that she should get $19 million? I probably couldn't get that if a corporation chopped off my legs and I sued them and won.

yeah but if you thought you COULD get a judgement of $19mil would you let them cut off your legs?

our beloved posters seem to think that the excessive judgement speaks against the validity of her claim. surely it speaks FOR it. (or at least for the quality of her legal representation)

if her claim was crap, she would have received nothing.

That does seem silly. What in God's name has she actually done, or had done to her, to merit being granted $19 million in damages? Ludicrous.

That does seem silly. What in God's name has she actually done, or had done to her, to merit being granted $19 million in damages? Ludicrous.

Hired a good lawyer. ;)

Hired a good lawyer. ;)

Indeed. An interesting insight into the nature of western law I feel.

our beloved posters seem to think that the excessive judgement speaks against the validity of her claim. surely it speaks FOR it. (or at least for the quality of her legal representation).. personally I have nothing against the validity of her claim.. maybe its valid. -shrugs-
But I am against her asking for 19 million for -apparently- psychological damages.

If you feel Fresno University must be punished with a 19 millions fine, then by all means slap them with that,

But dont give it to the supposed victim, just pay her medical bills. Do NOT put any money on her hands.. and give the remaining 18.9 million to the Red Cross or the Cancer foundation.
Its the only way to reduce the circus of US sexual harrassement Lawsuits.

.. personally I have nothing against the validity of her claim.. maybe its valid. -shrugs-
But I am against her asking for 19 million for -apparently- psychological damages.

If you feel Fresno University must be punished with a 19 millions fine, then by all means slap them with that,

But dont give it to the supposed victim, just pay her medical bills. Do NOT put any money on her hands.. and give the remaining 18.9 million to the Red Cross or the Cancer foundation.
Its the only way to reduce the circus of US sexual harrassement Lawsuits.

you dont know what she asked for, just what she received.

she is the 4th woman at fresno state who has received a judgement for this same behavior. the problem is not hers, its the university's.

no, i dont have a problem with her receiving money for her losses due to their bad behavior. as neo art indicated, it will probably get reduced in appeal but considering that another woman has received over $3million for the same kind of offense, she will still receive a substantial amount.

MY only problem with it is that the univeristy (and thus the people of california) will have to pay the judgement and not the men who discriminated and retaliated against her.

i dont have a problem with her receiving money...I do.







when its 3 millions or 9 millions... I do.
Like I said, do pushish the University all you want, fine them 20 millions, send them to Jail, I dont care... just dont put millions in her hands.

I do.







when its 3 millions or 9 millions... I do.
Like I said, do pushish the University all you want, fine them 20 millions, send them to Jail, I dont care... just dont put millions in her hands.

Just by themselves, the economic loses she suffered from being fired are over $5 million, according to the OP (I'm guessing the economic loses are what her salary would have been until the end of her contract).

Wow....11 women and one man? Am I the only one who thought that the Jury was a bit biased, whats your opinion on the Jury Neo? The fact that it was 11 women and one man?

Women outnumber men slightly yet nobody complains when it's 11 men and 1 woman?
:confused:

Women outnumber men slightly yet nobody complains when it's 11 men and 1 woman?
:confused:

Only the woman.

Women outnumber men slightly yet nobody complains when it's 11 men and 1 woman?
:confused:

How obtuse are you?

We have every right to complain about a jury consisting of 11 women and 1 man when the case is one of a female claiming sexual harrassment.

How obtuse are you?

We have every right to complain about a jury consisting of 11 women and 1 man when the case is one of a female claiming sexual harrassment.

Why? Would you complain about a jury of 11 men and 1 woman if the charge was murder against a male defendant?

Why? Would you complain about a jury of 11 men and 1 woman if the charge was murder against a male defendant?

One should complain about a jury that has 11 lizards and 1 squirrel if its there is a charge of loitering brought against a lump of primordial ooze.

How obtuse are you?

We have every right to complain about a jury consisting of 11 women and 1 man when the case is one of a female claiming sexual harrassment.

no we dont.

why?

because both sides got a say in who was on the jury and it was OK with the university's team that it was 11 women and 1 man.

its not a random process.

One should complain about a jury that has 11 lizards and 1 squirrel if its there is a charge of loitering brought against a lump of primordial ooze.

Of course you should. Every lump of primordial ooze has a right to a jury of its' peers. Ooze only in that jury box.

why is it so hard to believe that the jury found the treatment of the plaintif so egregious that they felt compelled to award her an enormous amount of money after an extremely short deliberation?

that indicates to ME, who has not heard the evidence, that she must have had a very strong case.

The grossly excessive award doesn't speak to the validity of her claims, &c- she wanted to settle for roughly a million dollars, which is perfectly reasonable.

The problem isn't with the woman, it is with the gross miscarriage of justice in awarding her 19,000,000 dollars, and the debased minds of the jurors who granted the award.

Just by themselves, the economic loses she suffered from being fired are over $5 million...Like I said, I would give the Millions should go to charitable orgs.. not in her hands.

to the validity of her claims..agreed.
There is not enough info about the proof the Lawyers presented to the Jury.. maybe Sexual harrassement did take place.
.
..the gross miscarriage of justice in awarding her 19,000,000 dollars, and the debased minds of the jurors who granted the award.I am not surprised at all.. put 11 women on the Jury.. and the amounts shall go hyperspace in a second.

The joke is on Fresno University Administrators.. here is my message to them.. "You morons, next time do not stay away of that retarded Lawyer." I hope you all lose your Jobs over this.

Like I said, I would give the Millions should go to charitable orgs.. not in her hands.

So she should lose the money that she would have earned, had they not discriminated against her?

Just by themselves, the economic loses she suffered from being fired are over $5 million..So she should lose the money that she would have earned, had they not discriminated against her?You cant lose something if its not first in your possesion first.
you cant lose money if you dont have is in your hand.
you cant lose money if you did not earn it first.



Stacy was awarded 19 mullion on this Sexual harrasemnt accusation.. Stacy used to buy herself a lottery ticket every Friday.. I say the Moron U administrators pay her another 5 millions on the money she was eventually going to make wining the lottery. [/sarcasm]
Oh yeah.. dont forget the handsome eligible bachelor she was going to meet at the office Christmas Party of 2010.. thats another cool million rigth there.

I am not surprised at all.. put 11 women on the Jury.. and the amounts shall go hyperspace in a second.


So you admit to being biased against women in the Jury then?

no we dont.

why?

because both sides got a say in who was on the jury and it was OK with the university's team that it was 11 women and 1 man.

its not a random process.

Exactly, what sort of fucking dipshit lawyer let that happen.

Like I said, I would give the Millions should go to charitable orgs.. not in her hands.

You cant lose something if its not first in your possesion first.
you cant lose money if you dont have is in your hand.
you cant lose money if you did not earn it first.



Stacy was awarded 19 mullion on this Sexual harrasemnt accusation.. Stacy used to buy herself a lottery ticket every Friday.. I say the Moron U administrators pay her another 5 millions on the money she was eventually going to make wining the lottery. [/sarcasm]
Oh yeah.. dont forget the handsome eligible bachelor she was going to meet at the office Christmas Party of 2010.. thats another cool million rigth there.

If she had a contract with the school, she was promised a certain amount of money each year. Therefore, if they hadn't discriminated against and fired her, she would have earned that money. That's where the economic loses come from.

So you admit to being biased against women in the Jury then?No, you lose ;-)
regarding Girls.. You will find no negative bias on me.

on the other hand there is massive positive bias on my body.. I am full of that pro-girls bias.. for example if 2 candidates with equal qualifications ask me for the a job -one male and one female- I will hire the girl 100% of the time.

take note i did not say 99.99%.. I said 100

If she had a contract with the school, she was promised a certain amount of money each year. Therefore, if they hadn't discriminated against and fired her, she would have earned that money. That's where the economic loses come from.:rolleyes: fine, they can pay her an allowance for one year.. or until she find herself an equivalent Job.
Still leaves 18 millions for the charitable foundations.

Exactly, what sort of fucking dipshit lawyer let that happen.a totally incompetent retarded moron of a Lawyer.. thats the sort.. :D

:rolleyes: fine, they can pay her an allowance for one year.. or until she find herself an equivalent Job.
Still leaves 18 millions for the charitable foundations.

No, I'd say they should pay her for ALL her economic losses, which totals just over $5 million according to the OP (after all, they did breach her contract by firing her without a legitimate reason).

No, I'd say they should pay her for ALL her economic losses, which totals just over $5 million.and that -right there- is where we do NOT agree.

and that -right there- is where we do NOT agree.

Then we disagree. So it's pretty much business as usual. :p

Then we disagree. So it's pretty much business as usual. :pYeah.. *relieved* ... thats what I been trying to tell you for the last excruciating 30 minutes.

You are holding an opinion on this issue (give her 5 millions)

and I am more than happy to be sitting on the other side of the fence.(not on your side) :D :D ;) :D

No, you lose ;-)
regarding Girls.. You will find no negative bias on me.

on the other hand there is massive positive bias on my body.. I am full of that pro-girls bias.. for example if 2 candidates with equal qualifications ask me for the a job -one male and one female- I will hire the girl 100% of the time.

take note i did not say 99.99%.. I said 100

You are evading the question

No, you lose ;-)You are evading the questionThe answer you are waiting for is on the first line, read my post again, when you try to quote me.. the easter egg -i specially put there for you- should magically appear.

hint: The message on the egg starts with the letter "n"

BTW:

Merry*• ´¨¨)) -:¦:- ((
¸.•´ .•´¨¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:-•´¨¨))
((¸¸.•´*Christmas to you Non-Aligned-States :D

The answer you are waiting for is on the first line, read my post again, when you try to quote me.. the easter egg -i specially put there for you- should magically appear.


An arbitrary declaration of your attitude and your posting history however, do not coincide. They serve in fact, to reinforce the perception that said declaration and your attitude are further divorced from one another than initially apparent.

An arbitrary declaration of your...:rolleyes: pathetic.

you asked a question, I answered "no", and -since you dont like my answer- you call it "arbitrary"An arbitrary declaration of your attitude and your posting history however, do not coincide. They serve in fact, to reinforce the perception that said declaration and your attitude are further divorced from one another than initially apparent.Oh my God!!! -you leave me no choice- I am going to divorce my left side.. -quick- I better hire that Moron Lawyer for my other side. :D :D :p :D

:rolleyes: pathetic.

you asked a question, I answered "no", and -since you dont like my answer- you call it "arbitrary"


Oh? You have posited your opinion of the jury, especially in regards to women in juries, quite clearly in a negative light in regards to your remarks as to astronomical damages they award. Yet you deny bias against women in juries.

Perhaps you should elaborate on your position then hmm?


Oh my God!!! -you leave me no choice- I am going to divorce my left side.. -quick- I better hire that Moron Lawyer for my other side. :D :D :p :D

Yes, I more or less suspected you would fail to garner the full range of meaning of the term and settle for a more commonly used one in an attempt to come up with a poor joke.

agreed.
There is not enough info about the proof the Lawyers presented to the Jury.. maybe Sexual harrassement did take place.
.
I am not surprised at all.. put 11 women on the Jury.. and the amounts shall go hyperspace in a second.

The joke is on Fresno University Administrators.. here is my message to them.. "You morons, next time do not stay away of that retarded Lawyer." I hope you all lose your Jobs over this.

Ironically, President Welty is in danger of losing his job over all this.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/253323.html

Welty in whirlwind after verdict
Lawmaker blasts him, others back him; Fresno State leader elusive after damaging $19m case.
By Doug Hoagland and George Hostetter / The Fresno Bee
12/07/07 23:18:37
More information

Click for site Archived coverage
Quick Job Search


Fresno State President John Welty wouldn't say directly on Friday whether he intends to quit following a multimillion-dollar verdict in the high-profile Stacy Johnson-Klein sex discrimination case against the university.

"There's a lot of work to be done at the university and I'm going to get it done," he said.

A university spokeswoman said later that Welty -- who has led the campus since 1991 -- intends to be president during the school's centennial celebration in 2011.

But in his first public interview since a Fresno County jury awarded $19.1 million to the university's former women's basketball coach, Welty was elusive about what the verdict means for his future.

For nearly two months, Johnson-Klein and California State University, Fresno, fought a vicious battle in Fresno County Superior Court. Less than 24 hours after the jury's verdict on Thursday, that no-holds-barred spirit moved into the political arena.

Early on Friday, state Sen. Dean Florez blasted Welty at a downtown Fresno news conference. "We simply can't afford him anymore," Florez said.

Florez threatened to stir up budget problems for the 23-campus California State University system unless Welty resigns, but there appeared little initial support in Sacramento for the Shafter Democrat's idea.

Later in the day, student leaders at Fresno State rallied behind the embattled president at a campus news conference.

"We stand behind Dr. Welty," said Stephen Trembley, executive vice president of the university's Associated Students.

Adding to the political drama was a possibility that jury misconduct involving an unauthorized phone call during deliberations could form the basis of an appeal.

Welty, however, took center stage Friday. He said in an interview that he was shocked by the judgment's "excessive size."

Running through many of his answers was his belief that Fresno State has fixed problems in the athletic department that led to sex discrimination lawsuits by Johnson-Klein, former volleyball coach Lindy Vivas and former associate athletic director Diane Milutinovich. Earlier this year, the university lost the Vivas case and settled the Milutinovich case for a total of $8 million.

"I recognize that it may appear there's difficult problems" at the university, Welty said. "But as I said, we've made some changes and it is a new era for Bulldog athletics."

He acknowledged that a leader who becomes too controversial may need to quit to give an organization a fresh start -- and said he might do it one day.

"If I believed the university is not moving forward -- making the changes and making the improvements we need to make -- I certainly would consider that," Welty said. "I evaluate how well I do every day."

Florez said Friday that Welty needs to do it now, for Fresno State's sake.

"That is the only signal one can send the Legislature at this point in time that change is actually going to occur at Fresno State," Florez said. He was joined at his news conference by Johnson-Klein, Vivas and Milutinovich.

But Welty's CSU bosses -- who could fire him -- continued to express support Friday.

"President Welty has achieved many accomplishments for Fresno State and the community of Fresno," CSU Chancellor Charles Reed said in a statement, adding that CSU trustees also support Welty.

State legislators need to get involved, because the three cases have cost taxpayers millions of dollars and are signs that the CSU system doesn't have adequate anti-discrimination policies, Florez said.


(Once again, theres more text on the next page).

Aside from the fact I doubt that Welty was running the Athletics Department personally, hes actually been a damn good administrator for the university. If you look into how much Fresno State has expanded in the past 16 years, its quite impressive. I personally, as well as a good portion of the students, have benefited from a good portion of the improvements President Welty has made. Which is probably why the EVP of associated students and the rest of the academic senate seem to be standing by him.

Personally, I think too much emphasis is placed on the athletics department anyway, but thats another story.

Oh? You have posited...
I have posted my answer.
You have "posited" a question, I have posted a clear answer.
and stop the su-positeds already :D
.
Perhaps you should elaborate on your position then hmm?like I said, My position is clear cut: I do have positive bias towards women.

Yes, I more or less suspected you would fail to garner the full range of meaning of the term and settle for a more commonly used one in an attempt to come up with a poor joke.I dont like to settle.

sue-me© :D

Yeah.. *relieved* ... thats what I been trying to tell you for the last excruciating 30 minutes.

You are holding an opinion on this issue (give her 5 millions)

and I am more than happy to be sitting on the other side of the fence.(not on your side) :D :D ;) :D

But the grass is greener on my side of the fence. After all, I just used some Scotts Turf Builder WinterGuard With PLUS 2 Weed Control. :D

Ironically, President Welty is in danger of losing his job over all this.Good, that will teach him not to hire incompetent Lawyers.
.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/253323.html
If you look into how much Fresno State has expanded in the past 16 years, its quite impressive. I personally, as well as a good portion of the students, have benefited from a good portion of the improvements President Welty has made. Which is probably why the EVP of associated students and the rest of the academic senate seem to be standing by him.hmm.. ok.. so maybe he should not be fired after all.

But the grass is greener on my side of the fence. After all, I just used some Scotts Turf Builder WinterGuard With PLUS 2 Weed Control. :DYeah but.. have you seen the awesome Grass on that Carrier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544918)?
It gave me a hard on :D

Even before the trial she offered to settle for slightly less than a million

Sounds to me like the athletic department annoyed the judge. :p