Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:\Anonymous wrote:This girl is asking for the court to reinstate her as the the tenured prof at Purdue. If she were this good, she should be able to find a tenured job elsewhere. $o, $omething i$ not right about this law$uit.
So, if someone discriminates against you, just let them have their way and go somewhere else? That's not how this works.
Let's wait and see if the court agrees she should be a tenured prof.
This is a jury decision.
Anonymous wrote:What about a kid that 50% white and 50% Chinese?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:\Anonymous wrote:This girl is asking for the court to reinstate her as the the tenured prof at Purdue. If she were this good, she should be able to find a tenured job elsewhere. $o, $omething i$ not right about this law$uit.
So, if someone discriminates against you, just let them have their way and go somewhere else? That's not how this works.
Let's wait and see if the court agrees she should be a tenured prof.
Anonymous wrote:\Anonymous wrote:This girl is asking for the court to reinstate her as the the tenured prof at Purdue. If she were this good, she should be able to find a tenured job elsewhere. $o, $omething i$ not right about this law$uit.
So, if someone discriminates against you, just let them have their way and go somewhere else? That's not how this works.
\Anonymous wrote:This girl is asking for the court to reinstate her as the the tenured prof at Purdue. If she were this good, she should be able to find a tenured job elsewhere. $o, $omething i$ not right about this law$uit.
Anonymous wrote:What about a kid that 50% white and 50% Chinese?
Anonymous wrote:This girl is asking for the court to reinstate her as the the tenured prof at Purdue. If she were this good, she should be able to find a tenured job elsewhere. $o, $omething i$ not right about this law$uit.
Anonymous wrote:This girl is asking for the court to reinstate her as the the tenured prof at Purdue. If she were this good, she should be able to find a tenured job elsewhere. $o, $omething i$ not right about this law$uit.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Dr. Ishii called women 'stupid,' referring to them as 'doing much worse research work as men engineers' and 'using the stupid U.S. legal system to get faculty positions they do not deserve.'"
---
It's more than possible that the Plaintiff didn't deserve tenure *and* Dr. Ishii needs to be removed yesterday.
US Legal System has entered the chat.
If he believes that, not very smart to bait the US legal system.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Purdue would go to trial rather than settle based on some pretty clear cut comments (imagine if they'd said that about blacks). I guess the administration agrees with the sentiment.
which should tell you there is no valid case
Because there isnt'. Why don't you fools realize that the media plays on the plaintiff's side of these cases? And often there Is "no there there" because anyone can sue in America but few cases ever make it to trial or judgment. grow up and learn before you poist such junk again
Do you think plaintiffs and their lawyers like spending a fortune on loser cases?
The plaintiff already lost 2/3 of her case. The only check n balance to a frivolous lawsuit is if she has to pay for her losing effort.
What are the 2/3 she lost?
I assume PP is not familiar with how civil suits work and is trying to apply some kind of arbitrary math to the summary judgment order. It looks like the court dismissed one of the named defendants and one of the claims against Purdue. The heart of the case survived summary judgment and is headed to trial. The decision likely didn't reduce the potential civil damages available to Plaintiff by much if any.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Purdue would go to trial rather than settle based on some pretty clear cut comments (imagine if they'd said that about blacks). I guess the administration agrees with the sentiment.
which should tell you there is no valid case
Because there isnt'. Why don't you fools realize that the media plays on the plaintiff's side of these cases? And often there Is "no there there" because anyone can sue in America but few cases ever make it to trial or judgment. grow up and learn before you poist such junk again
Do you think plaintiffs and their lawyers like spending a fortune on loser cases?
The plaintiff already lost 2/3 of her case. The only check n balance to a frivolous lawsuit is if she has to pay for her losing effort.
What are the 2/3 she lost?