5 ms·

>So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. Note that this is really comp

>So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. Note that this is really complicated because this is a civil trial, with a different standard of guilt (preponderance vs. beyond a reasonable doubt), and where invoking the 5th Amendment can definitely be held against you. If this were a criminal trial- and he did it correctly- invoking the 5th Amendment could not be used against him, but in civil case, it most definitely can be used against you.

life_on_mars 10y ago
It's reasonable for it to be used against Mr Lewandowsky, but is it reasonable to use it against his employer? Many people have their opinion on whether Uber is evil or not, but any employer that forces you to give up a right that Constitution affords you if you're potentially facing criminal charges sounds evil to me. If the court wants him to testify in a civil case instead of asserting his 5th amendment right, they should find a way to guarantee immunity or that he won't face criminal charges. OJ Simpson pleaded the 5th too and then later took the stand because the criminal case was litigated before the civil case.
- matt4077 10y ago
  This is addressed plenty of times in this thread. Futher, specific to your question: the court doesn't care one way or another. They'll take his testimony if he wants to give it, and they'll have it even easier to make a decision without. A civil court is also unlikely to be in a position to grant any immunity. Neither google nor the court care about the conflicts of interest on the defendants' side. I'd even agree with you that at-will employment is evil, and legitimately pleading the 5th shouldn't be enough to fire someone. But specifically in this case, Lewandowsky could be fired even if he were employed by the French government – he could then sue himself, and the findings of the google/uber trial would probably determine his claim of wrongful dismissal.

life_on_mars 10y ago

It's reasonable for it to be used against Mr Lewandowsky, but is it reasonable to use it against his employer? Many people have their opinion on whether Uber is evil or not, but any employer that forces you to give up a right that Constitution affords you if you're potentially facing criminal charges sounds evil to me. If the court wants him to testify in a civil case instead of asserting his 5th amendment right, they should find a way to guarantee immunity or that he won't face criminal charges. OJ Simpson pleaded the 5th too and then later took the stand because the criminal case was litigated before the civil case.

matt4077 10y ago
This is addressed plenty of times in this thread. Futher, specific to your question: the court doesn't care one way or another. They'll take his testimony if he wants to give it, and they'll have it even easier to make a decision without. A civil court is also unlikely to be in a position to grant any immunity. Neither google nor the court care about the conflicts of interest on the defendants' side. I'd even agree with you that at-will employment is evil, and legitimately pleading the 5th shouldn't be enough to fire someone. But specifically in this case, Lewandowsky could be fired even if he were employed by the French government – he could then sue himself, and the findings of the google/uber trial would probably determine his claim of wrongful dismissal.