Released

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by fitump56

I hope she sues b/c it will be the only way to find out if she was dumped b/c she was a woman.

What a bunch of illogical crap. If she has no evidence of illegal gender discrimination, then she mustn't sue. One doesn't sue to find out if something was wrong; rather, one sues because something was wrong.

Get off your soapbox, Ms. Alred. Just because the only female umpire was released doesn't mean there was illegal discrimination.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by UMP25

What a bunch of illogical crap. If she has no evidence of illegal gender discrimination, then she mustn't sue. One doesn't sue to find out if something was wrong; rather, one sues because something was wrong.

Get off your soapbox, Ms. Alred. Just because the only female umpire was released doesn't mean there was illegal discrimination.

Sometimes the only way to find out if something is wrong is if you do indeed file suit. Even then you can be right and lose or you can be wrong and win.

[UMP25]

If Ria believes something was wrong, let her get an investigator or let her dig around herself and try to find out. Filing a lawsuit when one has no foundation on which to base said suit is just another waste of the judicial system's time.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by UMP25

If Ria believes something was wrong, let her get an investigator or let her dig around herself and try to find out. Filing a lawsuit when one has no foundation on which to base said suit is just another waste of the judicial system's time.

Perhaps Ria can't afford to hire a PI. This shouldn't prevent her from filing. Would you requirw this of a homeless person who was wronged in some way?

[UMP25]

And hiring a lawyer to sue is free? Get real. An attorney is going to be more expensive than hiring a P.I.

And your homeless analogy is equally as illogical. How's a homeless person going to afford an attorney to sue, huh?

Originally Posted by gordon30307

Would you requirw this of a homeless person who was wronged in some way?

You betcha. If said person wants to sue, it's HIS responsibility to pay for said suit and its accompanying costs! There exists no right that says he's entitled to free legal representation.

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by UMP25

There exists no right that says he's entitled to free legal representation.

Actually there is exactly that, it is called contingency. It costs nothing to sue someone claiming personal injury (be it an actual physical injury or other). The fees are paid AFTER a settlement,and are a percentage of it. If there is no settlement, there are no attorney fees. With all that being said, a suit will not let everyone know anything resembling the truth, the terms of the settlement will be protected, and everyone will be jubject to a gag order. So, if she does sue, it will just fuel the fire for more people who don't know anything to speculate more.



edited for grammar

[SAump]

What are the odds the catcher who let her get drilled ends up in the lawsuit, if there ever was one, to make the emotional argument turn in her favor?

Okay perhaps, there is never going to be a lawsuit there. How about a movie to follow that book deal? The ball is in her "court" now.

[bobbybanaduck]

i never told her that he said that

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by BigTex

Actually there is exactly that, it is called contingency. It costs nothing to sue someone claiming personal injury (be it an actual physical injury or other).

Wrong. There is not "exactly that." It's not that at all. It's NOT a right; and contingencies are not free. Money must still be expended regardless of the outcome. Because of the risk, attorneys' fees are usually higher in such cases.

Again, no one has a right to legal representation in a lawsuit. You're on your own financially or otherwise.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

i never told her that he said that

But that could always come out in discovery. I'd love to be in on the deposition on that one!

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by fitump56
I hope she sues b/c it will be the only way to find out if she was dumped b/c she was a woman.

Originally Posted by UMP25

What a bunch of illogical crap. If she has no evidence of illegal gender discrimination, then she mustn't sue. One doesn't sue to find out if something was wrong; rather, one sues because something was wrong.

One word, look it up. The legal definition of:

D-I-S-C-O-V-E-R-Y

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

i never told her that he said that

You mean Ria doesn't know how to read an umpire forum?

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by fitump56
I hope she sues b/c it will be the only way to find out if she was dumped b/c she was a woman.

Originally Posted by UMP25

Get off your soapbox, Ms. Alred. Just because the only female umpire was released doesn't mean there was illegal discrimination.

Which part of "find out" did you set in your concrete head as "guilty of discrimination"?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by fitump56

One word, look it up. The legal definition of:

D-I-S-C-O-V-E-R-Y

Your circular (il)logic is amusing.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by fitump56

Originally Posted by fitump56
I hope she sues b/c it will be the only way to find out if she was dumped b/c she was a woman.



Which part of "find out" did you set in your concrete head as "guilty of discrimination"?

Get off your soapbox already, Ms. Alred.