If anything, they should be rewarded

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Christine says:

    Not to belabor this post, but how did her breasts grow? Was she 15? Was she pregnant? Did she order that cream from late-night television? To me, that is the newsworthy part of the story.

  2. Scott Moss says:

    I practiced plaintiff-side employment discrim law for a number of years. I cannot believe that her lawyer gave such a dumb quote: (1) conceding and stressing that there are jobs for which breast size is “obviously” (obviously?!?!) relevant; and (2) making a joke in questionable taste about large breasts being a positive for a Broadway gig.

    He’s basically conceding that breast size is often a relevant job qualification: larger breasts are good for job ABC, but smaller ones are better for XYZ. That’s a ba-a-a-ad way to start pressing your claim that rejecting your client based on breast size is unfair and discriminatory.

  3. Scott Moss says:

    Oh, I just looked: her lawyer is Larry Klayman, the… well, let’s just say “eccentric” lawyer who spent most of the 90s suing the Clinton administration (mostly in non-substantive FOIA requests aimed at proving this or that conspiracy) and then ran a futile senate race in Florida in 2004.

    Employment discrim really is one of those areas where you are extraordinarily likely to lose on summary judgment if you don’t take the right discovery and brief the case just right. If I were this actress… well, let’s just say I wouldn’t start spending my $100m yet.

    And oh yeah, it’s basically legally impossible to sue for $100m for employment discrim. Economic and emotional distress damages don’t ever get into that ballpark, and under the Sup. Ct.’s recent punitive damages precedents, you pretty much can’t get $99.5 million in punis if your actual (economic+emotional) damages are at most a few hundred thou.