4 ms·

Agreed, the legal system is in place to decide who wins, not what makes sense.

• rayiner 9y ago
  At least this part of the system makes sense. There is a two-step process: pleading and merits. The first stage is a filter for the second. At the pleading stage, there is a trade-off between getting the right answer and the expense to businesses of defending litigation. The pleading standard (the level of facts you have to allege to get to the merits) is a knob you can turn to trade-off between those two things. If you make the pleading standard liberal, as it is in the U.S., you'll get the right answer more often because you'll actually delve into the emails, witnesses interviews, etc. to see if the defendant actually did do what the plaintiff says he did. If you make the pleading standard more stringent, you reduce the expense of litigation for companies, but you also deny more meritorious claims. E.g. companies that discriminate don't exactly advertise that fact. If you require a high standard of proof to simply bring the claim (as distinguished from proving liability), then most people who have actually been discriminated against will not be able to recover.