4 ms·

Can you go into any specifics as to what was (allegedly) said to the candidates? 18 cases sounds like the company was either interviewing thousands of applican

Can you go into any specifics as to what was (allegedly) said to the candidates? 18 cases sounds like the company was either interviewing thousands of applicants or giving very strong reasons for legal challenges.

WalterBright 12y ago
A person does not need 'very strong' reasons for legal challenges. They can be spurious, with the plaintiff hoping the company will find it cheaper to settle than defend themselves. A system where the loser pays the winner the amount the loser paid their own lawyers will stop most of this nonsense.
- GauntletWizard 12y ago
  Loser pays sounds like a good system, and I'll admit your suggestion for amount makes a lot of sense, but what if the lawyer is working entirely on contingency, as many of these cases are?
  - WalterBright 12y ago
    The interesting thing about contingency is a lawyer isn't going to take on a frivolous lawsuit on contingency. A lawyer will only take one on that he knows he can win, otherwise it's a giant waste of the lawyer's time and money, which he won't do. So I don't think it would be a problem.
    - pandaman 12y ago
      This is true if contingency lawyers only charge their regular rate. Do they really? I thought they work for a stake in the award they are going to win. Otherwise, why would anybody take a case on contingency? There is no 100% guarantee of winning a civil case so it's effectively reducing your own rate since you are going to lose* some cases eventually (* you might even win every case but some of them did not get awarded enough money to pay the lawyer's fees).
      - WalterBright 12y ago
        Contingency means they charge a percentage of the winnings. If they lose, they get $0. Hence, lawyers don't take on contingency cases unless it's a strong case.
        pandaman 12y ago
        And if they win they might get a giant pile of money. Hence, rational lawyers take on contingency cases based on the strength of the case relative to the potential payout. A weak case with high payout could be a better option than a sure-win case with low payout. This very website is created by people who practice this strategy in investment and they seem to be doing just fine.
  - qznc 12y ago
    Germany has "loser pays everything". However, a settlement means no one lost and everybody pays his own lawyers.
- kstenerud 12y ago
  A "loser pays" system sounds great on the surface, but is fraught with unintended consequences: - A complainant who loses on a technicality or procedural failure, and is now on the hook for hundreds of thousands in legal fees. - A big company that bullies the complainant with legal shenanegans until the complainant is worn out, drops the case, and is now on the hook for hundreds of thousands in legal fees. Just the fact that, after your own expensive legal fees, you'll be saddled with the big company's (much bigger) fees as well, would be enough to deter most people from suing, even if they're in the right. It would become a new tool for bullying the poor.
  - WalterBright 12y ago
    The loser's max liability will be what he paid his own lawyers, not what the other party paid theirs. Thus, you cannot spend your opponent into oblivion. A better formula for what loser pays would be: min(what you paid your lawyers, what the other side paid their lawyers)
    - joedavison 12y ago
      And what about pro se litigants? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se_legal_representation_in_the_United_States#In_civil_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se_legal_representation_in... For individuals, representing oneself pro se is extremely common. Corporations must have an attorney, of course.
      - WalterBright 12y ago
        Their legal liability would then be $0. It wouldn't be worse than it is now.
- midnightclubbed 12y ago
  How often does this happen in these kinds of cases? Lawyers don't work for free and payouts from a hiring suit are unlikely to be all that large (compared to medical malpractice and the like). I've been at companies hit with employment law cases but always from current or former employees, never from potential applicants. It seems difficult to prove, unless the rejected candidate is given physical proof of wrong-doing.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

WalterBright 12y ago

A person does not need 'very strong' reasons for legal challenges. They can be spurious, with the plaintiff hoping the company will find it cheaper to settle than defend themselves. A system where the loser pays the winner the amount the loser paid their own lawyers will stop most of this nonsense.

GauntletWizard 12y ago
Loser pays sounds like a good system, and I'll admit your suggestion for amount makes a lot of sense, but what if the lawyer is working entirely on contingency, as many of these cases are?
- WalterBright 12y ago
  The interesting thing about contingency is a lawyer isn't going to take on a frivolous lawsuit on contingency. A lawyer will only take one on that he knows he can win, otherwise it's a giant waste of the lawyer's time and money, which he won't do. So I don't think it would be a problem.
  - pandaman 12y ago
    This is true if contingency lawyers only charge their regular rate. Do they really? I thought they work for a stake in the award they are going to win. Otherwise, why would anybody take a case on contingency? There is no 100% guarantee of winning a civil case so it's effectively reducing your own rate since you are going to lose* some cases eventually (* you might even win every case but some of them did not get awarded enough money to pay the lawyer's fees).
    - WalterBright 12y ago
      Contingency means they charge a percentage of the winnings. If they lose, they get $0. Hence, lawyers don't take on contingency cases unless it's a strong case.
      - pandaman 12y ago
        And if they win they might get a giant pile of money. Hence, rational lawyers take on contingency cases based on the strength of the case relative to the potential payout. A weak case with high payout could be a better option than a sure-win case with low payout. This very website is created by people who practice this strategy in investment and they seem to be doing just fine.
- qznc 12y ago
  Germany has "loser pays everything". However, a settlement means no one lost and everybody pays his own lawyers.
kstenerud 12y ago
A "loser pays" system sounds great on the surface, but is fraught with unintended consequences: - A complainant who loses on a technicality or procedural failure, and is now on the hook for hundreds of thousands in legal fees. - A big company that bullies the complainant with legal shenanegans until the complainant is worn out, drops the case, and is now on the hook for hundreds of thousands in legal fees. Just the fact that, after your own expensive legal fees, you'll be saddled with the big company's (much bigger) fees as well, would be enough to deter most people from suing, even if they're in the right. It would become a new tool for bullying the poor.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  The loser's max liability will be what he paid his own lawyers, not what the other party paid theirs. Thus, you cannot spend your opponent into oblivion. A better formula for what loser pays would be: min(what you paid your lawyers, what the other side paid their lawyers)
  - joedavison 12y ago
    And what about pro se litigants? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se_legal_representation_in_the_United_States#In_civil_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se_legal_representation_in... For individuals, representing oneself pro se is extremely common. Corporations must have an attorney, of course.
    - WalterBright 12y ago
      Their legal liability would then be $0. It wouldn't be worse than it is now.
midnightclubbed 12y ago
How often does this happen in these kinds of cases? Lawyers don't work for free and payouts from a hiring suit are unlikely to be all that large (compared to medical malpractice and the like). I've been at companies hit with employment law cases but always from current or former employees, never from potential applicants. It seems difficult to prove, unless the rejected candidate is given physical proof of wrong-doing.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]