4 ms·
The judge would say "what laws were specifically broken?" Then toss it out when the plaintiffs come up empty handed. If the case somehow did get through, they w
by Minor49er 5y ago
The judge would say "what laws were specifically broken?" Then toss it out when the plaintiffs come up empty handed. If the case somehow did get through, they would have to justify how their own repeated violations of Google's data security policies, which led to their terminations, would put them in the right. They would have a hard time of showing that they themselves are clean of evil.
- carlivar 5y agoLaws don't have to be broken in a civil case.
- dragonwriter 5y agoYes, they do. Criminal laws don't have to be broken, but criminal laws aren't the only kind of laws.
- jcranmer 5y agoThis is a civil case, where the causes of action arise either from contractual violations or from private rights of action authorized by law. The counts alleged are "breach of contract", "promissory estoppel", "breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" (all three of which are essentially saying "Google legally promised they wouldn't do something they did, and it hurt me"), defamation, and, uh, "termination in violation of public policy" (which is basically saying it violates employment discrimination laws, and is at best poorly drafted in the complaint). In this case, the tossing out would be along the lines of "the facts alleged in the complaint are, even if true, insufficient to let you bring this lawsuit" (or, more succinctly, "failure to state a claim [upon which relief can be granted]").
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoI'd be nice of the judge to censure the lawyers for wasting the court's time too.