Thursday, September 2, 2010

I like the tag.

Way to avoid a reference to Kool and the Gang, Bart. The Second Circuit has one opinion and the Minnesota Human Rights Department has a different one. Of course, the Second Circuit is considering the Equal Protection clause, and the the department was interpreting Minnesota's Human Rights Act.

Considering the opposite conclusion reached by these two entities, begs the question of why the plaintiff chose to sue under the Equal Protection clause instead of a state or federal public anti-discrimination law. At first I thought it might be because the plaintiff, Den Hollander was not represented by an attorney and, therefore, was unaware that New York City prohibits discrimination by businesses (I know, New York State probably does too but it is late and finding that statute is unnecessary to my point). However, it turns out that Mr. Hollander is an attorney. One whose whole practice is apparently devoted to being an (or perhaps the), "anti-feminist lawyer". Given that he is a lawyer, his unwillingness to invoke anti-discrimination in public accommodation laws is perplexing.

One thing on Mr. Hollander's website that I think all attorneys can relate to is this: on each of his loses in his "trilogy of cases" he blames the judge rather than a weakness with his case or advocacy skills.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments on posts older than 30 days are moderated because almost all of those comments are spam.