Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Here we've even had lawsuits where men sued because they couldn't get hired 
> to work at a topless restaurant. (I.e., a "hooters" type place.)

  Well, there everyone sues everyone else for every possible reason, just
to see if they can milk some money from them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         And then there are export restrictions.

  But in this case it would be an US company refusing to sell a US citizen.
(Ok, I don't know if the original poster is an US citizen, but the situation
can perfectly well happen to one.) Nothing to export here.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Here we've even had lawsuits where men sued because they couldn't get hired 
>> to work at a topless restaurant. (I.e., a "hooters" type place.)
> 
>   Well, there everyone sues everyone else for every possible reason, just
> to see if they can milk some money from them.

Yes, it was a pretty silly lawsuit.

Lawyers: America's great untapped export market.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:50:17 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Here we've even had lawsuits where men sued because they couldn't get
>> hired to work at a topless restaurant. (I.e., a "hooters" type place.)
> 
>   Well, there everyone sues everyone else for every possible reason,
>   just
> to see if they can milk some money from them.

Well, no, not *everyone*.  I haven't sued anyone.  So there's a 
counterexample to disprove your assertion. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, no, not *everyone*.  I haven't sued anyone.  So there's a 

	Yet.

-- 
The next war will determine not what is right, but what is left.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:06:40 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, no, not *everyone*.  I haven't sued anyone.  So there's a
> 
> 	Yet.

True, I was actually going to say "yet", but felt it diluted the point I 
was trying to make.

Which is this:  Many, many people live a full lifetime in the US and 
don't sue anyone.  My grandfather never sued anyone (to my knowledge) and 
lived a full life.  And he's very *very* unlikely to do so now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Which is this:  Many, many people live a full lifetime in the US and 
> don't sue anyone.  My grandfather never sued anyone (to my knowledge) and 
> lived a full life.  And he's very *very* unlikely to do so now.

	I agree with your bigger point. A more relevant statistic would be how
many people go through their whole lives without _being_ sued.

-- 
Don't take life so seriously.  It won't last.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:14:53 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Which is this:  Many, many people live a full lifetime in the US and
>> don't sue anyone.  My grandfather never sued anyone (to my knowledge)
>> and lived a full life.  And he's very *very* unlikely to do so now.
> 
> 	I agree with your bigger point. A more relevant statistic would 
be how
> many people go through their whole lives without _being_ sued.

Quite possibly, because there are those who sue more than once, or groups 
of people who sue individuals and corporations in large numbers.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Well, they probably are considered some sort of non-profit organization 
> (IIRC, they are considered a fraternal organization with officers), but I 
> think they would be required by law to have an employer ID number if they 
> paid their officers a salary.

Would it be legal to stipulate that employees may only be a member if 
their "group?"


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:15:01 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Well, they probably are considered some sort of non-profit organization
>> (IIRC, they are considered a fraternal organization with officers), but
>> I think they would be required by law to have an employer ID number if
>> they paid their officers a salary.
> 
> Would it be legal to stipulate that employees may only be a member if
> their "group?"

I wouldn't know, I suppose you could, for example, in a religious 
institution require that workers there need to be members, but I'm not 
sure how that applies to an organization like this.

Jim

Post a reply to this message