YOUCH!!! That hurts a LOT, doesn't it Fedex?

[H4CS]

Look at the thread I made, it looks like several people would put up with it.  maybe there are all irrational, I don't know.

I just don't get how your question and this situation are related.

[J D]

My only point is that when laypeople hear "severe emotional distress" they tend to think it's merely a case about hurt feelings, a hypersensitive plaintiff who didn't get an apology and now wants money instead, etc.  People have to understand the full potential extent of the harm we're talking about here.  It's not merely a matter of sticks and stones.  Like I said, racial (and sexual) harassment cases are UGLY; for illustrative cases, see, e.g., Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094 (1986); Dickerson v. New Jersey, Dep't of Human Services, 767 F. Supp. 605 (1991).  And a rational person doesn't want to put up with that AT ALL, even if they're guaranteed to get a lot of money at the end.  A rational person wants to work in an environment that is not hostile or abusive.  I resent the implication to the contrary. 

please point to where i said it was "sticks and stones" or anything like that?  I think you assumed that because my position is slightly different from yours, that I must be completely insensitive to what happened.  I have seen people hurt like this (family members) and understand.  please refrain from talking down to me if you want me to take you seriously.

Look at the thread I made, it looks like several people would put up with it.  maybe there are all irrational, I don't know.

I wasn't referring specifically to you, although, by your joke that maybe you should get rich quick by quitting law school and driving a truck, you certainly did come off that way to me.  I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.  Although, if  you've known people who have been hurt by harassment like this, I just can't seem to understand how you could suggest what you are suggesting now.  My only point is that the "price" of the damages award, the need to have to go through 2 years of hell during which you should have been entitled to work without being abused, is just too high.

And as for the people who said they would put up with it, I have a feeling they might a) not be approaching the problem correctly (i.e., they know about the guarantee of damages in avdance, and it's affecting their calculus regarding whether they'd rather be harmed or not; maybe they should put the knowledge of the award to one side, and having suffered the harm, think counterfactually "does this money make it worth it?"), or possibly b) are failing to consider the gravity of harm that can result from hostile work environment racial harassment over 2 years.

Another problem I find with the hypo is that it seems not to take into account the need for four years of litigation in order to get the award, AFTER you've already gone through hell for two years.  That's four years in which to be painted as crazy, vindictive, and hypersensitive by FedEx's able counsel, four years in which to incur mounting psychiatric treatment costs with no way to pay for it, four years in which to potentially have all your relationships fall apart, etc.

[SCgrad]

Look at the thread I made, it looks like several people would put up with it.  maybe there are all irrational, I don't know.

I just don't get how your question and this situation are related.

not really that related.  only trying to point out that mental anguish is not at the same level as physical harm.  probably not done in the best way.  it was late where I am.

My only point is that when laypeople hear "severe emotional distress" they tend to think it's merely a case about hurt feelings, a hypersensitive plaintiff who didn't get an apology and now wants money instead, etc.  People have to understand the full potential extent of the harm we're talking about here.  It's not merely a matter of sticks and stones.  Like I said, racial (and sexual) harassment cases are UGLY; for illustrative cases, see, e.g., Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094 (1986); Dickerson v. New Jersey, Dep't of Human Services, 767 F. Supp. 605 (1991).  And a rational person doesn't want to put up with that AT ALL, even if they're guaranteed to get a lot of money at the end.  A rational person wants to work in an environment that is not hostile or abusive.  I resent the implication to the contrary. 

please point to where i said it was "sticks and stones" or anything like that?  I think you assumed that because my position is slightly different from yours, that I must be completely insensitive to what happened.  I have seen people hurt like this (family members) and understand.  please refrain from talking down to me if you want me to take you seriously.

Look at the thread I made, it looks like several people would put up with it.  maybe there are all irrational, I don't know.

I wasn't referring specifically to you, although, by your joke that maybe you should get rich quick by quitting law school and driving a truck, you certainly did come off that way to me.  I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.  Although, if  you've known people who have been hurt by harassment like this, I just can't seem to understand how you could suggest what you are suggesting now.  My only point is that the "price" of the damages award, the need to have to go through 2 years of hell during which you should have been entitled to work without being abused, is just too high.

And as for the people who said they would put up with it, I have a feeling they might a) not be approaching the problem correctly (i.e., they know about the guarantee of damages in avdance, and it's affecting their calculus regarding whether they'd rather be harmed or not; maybe they should put the knowledge of the award to one side, and having suffered the harm, think counterfactually "does this money make it worth it?"), or possibly b) are failing to consider the gravity of harm that can result from hostile work environment racial harassment over 2 years.

Another problem I find with the hypo is that it seems not to take into account the need for four years of litigation in order to get the award, AFTER you've already gone through hell for two years.  That's four years in which to be painted as crazy, vindictive, and hypersensitive by FedEx's able counsel, four years in which to incur mounting psychiatric treatment costs with no way to pay for it, four years in which to potentially have all your relationships fall apart, etc.

A.  yes you were.  don't lie about it.

B.  You missed the point of my joke.  I was supposing that since the award was that high, the salary of truck drivers for FedEx must be high, due to the compensetory award.  Seeing that you agreed the award was high, I don't see how you can condemn this comment.  Maybe you saw what you wanted to see.  I never once said this harassment is not serious.  fwiw, i know someone very well who was a sexual harassment lawyer for 15 years. 

hell, i never even said i would, in fact I think i said i wouldn't.  i just don't think it is irrational.  think about it, with 11 million dollars, you could probably ligitimately save 1000 starving babies.  maybe you think your suffering is worth that?  would that be irrational?

[J D]

Look at the thread I made, it looks like several people would put up with it.  maybe there are all irrational, I don't know.

I just don't get how your question and this situation are related.

not really that related.  only trying to point out that mental anguish is not at the same level as physical harm.  probably not done in the best way.  it was late where I am.

My only point is that when laypeople hear "severe emotional distress" they tend to think it's merely a case about hurt feelings, a hypersensitive plaintiff who didn't get an apology and now wants money instead, etc.  People have to understand the full potential extent of the harm we're talking about here.  It's not merely a matter of sticks and stones.  Like I said, racial (and sexual) harassment cases are UGLY; for illustrative cases, see, e.g., Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094 (1986); Dickerson v. New Jersey, Dep't of Human Services, 767 F. Supp. 605 (1991).  And a rational person doesn't want to put up with that AT ALL, even if they're guaranteed to get a lot of money at the end.  A rational person wants to work in an environment that is not hostile or abusive.  I resent the implication to the contrary. 

please point to where i said it was "sticks and stones" or anything like that?  I think you assumed that because my position is slightly different from yours, that I must be completely insensitive to what happened.  I have seen people hurt like this (family members) and understand.  please refrain from talking down to me if you want me to take you seriously.

Look at the thread I made, it looks like several people would put up with it.  maybe there are all irrational, I don't know.

I wasn't referring specifically to you, although, by your joke that maybe you should get rich quick by quitting law school and driving a truck, you certainly did come off that way to me.  I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.  Although, if  you've known people who have been hurt by harassment like this, I just can't seem to understand how you could suggest what you are suggesting now.  My only point is that the "price" of the damages award, the need to have to go through 2 years of hell during which you should have been entitled to work without being abused, is just too high.

And as for the people who said they would put up with it, I have a feeling they might a) not be approaching the problem correctly (i.e., they know about the guarantee of damages in avdance, and it's affecting their calculus regarding whether they'd rather be harmed or not; maybe they should put the knowledge of the award to one side, and having suffered the harm, think counterfactually "does this money make it worth it?"), or possibly b) are failing to consider the gravity of harm that can result from hostile work environment racial harassment over 2 years.

Another problem I find with the hypo is that it seems not to take into account the need for four years of litigation in order to get the award, AFTER you've already gone through hell for two years.  That's four years in which to be painted as crazy, vindictive, and hypersensitive by FedEx's able counsel, four years in which to incur mounting psychiatric treatment costs with no way to pay for it, four years in which to potentially have all your relationships fall apart, etc.

A.  yes you were.  don't lie about it.

B.  You missed the point of my joke.  I was supposing that since the award was that high, the salary of truck drivers for FedEx must be high, due to the compensetory award.  Seeing that you agreed the award was high, I don't see how you can condemn this comment.  Maybe you saw what you wanted to see.  I never once said this harassment is not serious.  fwiw, i know someone very well who was a sexual harassment lawyer for 15 years. 

hell, i never even said i would, in fact I think i said i wouldn't.  i just don't think it is irrational.  think about it, with 11 million dollars, you could probably ligitimately save 1000 starving babies.  maybe you think your suffering is worth that?  would that be irrational?

Not lying, but you can believe what you want; sorry for any offense.

It looks like I really did miss the point of the joke.  To me, it looked an awful lot like the normal type of joke one sees being made (say, on a Yahoo! news group) after a harassment victim wins a big judgment, which basically goes like "gee, for that amount of money, I wish I were harassed, ha ha ha."  I'm sorry that I took it the wrong way, but that's how it looked like to me, that was my first impression.  Also, some of the other reports I've read on the case (not in the link I've posted, though, I don't think) described the compensatory award as mostly for emotional distress.  That only contributed to my conclusion.

I think the only way you could say that it would be rational to choose the $11 million over not being injured at all is if you believed that money was truly adequate to make you whole, AND if you also believed that $11 million in this case was overcompensation for the injury (if it wasn't, you'd be at best no better off with the money, and thus would be indifferent between the two).  I argued in the other thread that oftentimes, especially in cases involving severe injuries (of any type, emotional distress, physical, etc.), this isn't the case:  money can't buy you back what the defendant caused you to lose.  It's just the only way we can even try to make the plaintiff's current situation better, but it's not going to get him back to the position he was in before the harm was committed.  If this is true, then it's not rational to prefer the money to not being injured.

Again, sorry for any offense.  Bygones?   

[SCgrad]

Yeah, no worries.  I can see how that would be a normal way to interpret it.  I just want to clear my name of any insensitivity points I might have accrued.   I think I basically agree with your position with just a different degree of weight for one type of injury and another.  Interestingly enough, I was involved in something not too long ago that caused me both physical and emotional pain, and I would actually say in my case the emotional pain was much worse (I couldn’t get compensation for it, as the person who did it to me was a thug).   I don’t feel bad for FedEx at all, and I especially don’t feel bad for the harassers who if I remember correctly were also individually held liable.  Again, I think any of our actual disagreements are mere semantics, I may have framed my position poorly, this is a message board, and as you can see from my post count, I don’t usually put a lot of thought into the finer points of my posts.   

[J D]

Yeah, no worries.  I can see how that would be a normal way to interpret it.  I just want to clear my name of any insensitivity points I might have accrued.   I think I basically agree with your position with just a different degree of weight for one type of injury and another.  Interestingly enough, I was involved in something not too long ago that caused me both physical and emotional pain, and I would actually say in my case the emotional pain was much worse (I couldn’t get compensation for it, as the person who did it to me was a thug).   I don’t feel bad for FedEx at all, and I especially don’t feel bad for the harassers who if I remember correctly were also individually held liable.  Again, I think any of our actual disagreements are mere semantics, I may have framed my position poorly, this is a message board, and as you can see from my post count, I don’t usually put a lot of thought into the finer points of my posts.   

Thanks for that; hope you're doing okay now. 

I guess we've spent a lot of time just talking past each other.  I also think I have a problem with severe emotional distress and harassment and things of that kind: I get really defensive for some reason, hence my unjustified puncing when I perceived you as making light of it.  I think it might stem from how much reading those cases in Torts (the ones I mentioned earlier, the really sick ones; believe me when I say that's only the tip of the iceberg) on emotional distress.  They really affected me; they really affected a lot of my classmates.  It's just really horrible reading.  There's a thread on the other side of LSD about the cases that stand out most in your mind; for most people, those seem to be the great cases (usually in Contracts) with the really hilarious facts, cases about Harrier jets, and carbolic smoke balls, and lots of cows being traded left and right.  While I remember and enjoy those cases a lot, they aren't the ones that stick with me the most.  That dubious honor is reserved for the emotional distress cases.

And reading Class Action, and seeing North Country, and working on 2 workplace harassment problems for legal writing (forcing me to read even more horrible cases) probably hasn't helped much either.   

Take care.