7 ms·
This is headed to a Rule 56 SJ on standing grounds. If affected individuals want to sue over reverse discrimination claims, they can put their name to the lawsu
by HillRat 3y ago
This is headed to a Rule 56 SJ on standing grounds. If affected individuals want to sue over reverse discrimination claims, they can put their name to the lawsuit and take their PR lumps for doing so, rather than hiding behind a political pressure group with no cognizable direct interests. This is just grandstanding by lawyers who know better and should be exposed to rule 11 sanctions for wasting the defendant’s and court’s time with an abusive filing.
- SpaceManNabs 3y agoFrom what I understand, if the SCOTUS takes on lawsuits from people without standing, why can't other courts? I do agree this is ridiculous.
- bastardoperator 3y agoLet's never forget SCOTUS allowed a women to claim she couldn't start a website business unless she was allowed to discriminate against LGBT... and won.
- joshuaheard 3y agoA group can sue on behalf of its members. Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977)
- HillRat 3y agoNot my world (and I think GA has tighter org and assoc standings rules that would come into play here, too), but I’d argue that there’s a need to show individualized proof of harm here that runs afoul of the third Hunt prong. (This is pretty transparently an effort to avoid disclosing the plaintiffs’ names, so I’m not inclined to give this group the benefit of the doubt here.) Also, upvoting you b/c Hunt is definitely applicable here!
- gnicholas 3y ago> I think GA has tighter org and assoc standings rules This was filed in federal court, so only federal rules regarding standing would apply. Also, this organization is led by the SFFA guy, who seems to have dotted his i's and crossed his t's with regard to standing in that lawsuit. There were never any serious discussions about standing in that case, and this one seems to be similarly structured. As a (former) lawyer, my educated guess is that standing will not be a major issue in this case. What stood out most to me is that it refers to the Civil Rights act of 1866!
- gnicholas 3y agoAh, now I see that the CRA of 1886 is mentioned because this is a "section 1981 claim" — one of the few types of lawsuits that rewards a successful plaintiff with attorney's fees. These are brought under the 1886 CRA, section 1981. This could turn into quite a cottage industry, since attorney's fees are a strong incentive when the odds of winning are good — or when it doesn't take much effort to file the complaint.
- singleshot_ 3y agoIs it really that straightforward? Is this suit brought by a formal organization bringing suit on behalf of its members? Would the members have standing to sue on their own? Are the interests in question germane to that organization’s purpose? Are the individuals required for the litigation? These are all (arguably) factual questions making summary judgment inappropriate. However I’m guessing you know something I don’t. What am I missing?
- HillRat 3y agoYeah, I wasn't clear as to my reasoning: if you read the filing, they go out of their way to refuse the disclose the underlying plaintiffs' identities and specifics of alleged harm, so filing under associational standing is a gambit to evade FRCP 10(a) and hide plaintiffs' identities for (IMO) improper reasons -- embarrassment and economic harm are not sufficient reasons to allow pseudonymous filings, but they'd have trouble finding sympathetic plaintiffs who are willing to publicly associate themselves with this case.
- singleshot_ 3y agoI love this site. Thank you.