Are 80% of lawyers incompetent and lazy?
I recently had lunch with a circuit judge who thinks this statistic is accurate!
In 19 years of practicing criminal defense law, I have never had lunch with a judge.
I avoid the practice because I don’t think lawyers and judges should socialize because it can lead to charges of favoritism or an accusation of bias by the public who are quick to draw negative conclusions from innocent social affiliations.
When this judge asked me to meet, I had no idea why. Usually when I am summoned by a judge, the judge wants to ask me to consider taking some case so horrific the lawyers in that judge’s district won’t touch it. The child rapist or child serial killer is often to hot to handle for small town lawyers. (Think Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird.)
So, I arrived for lunch assuming I was going to be asked to take a case no one wanted.
To my surprise, the judge, who arrived with judicial staff in tow, told me a tale of a recent trial in which this judge became aware rather quickly that a lawyer representing the defendant was completely incompetent.
This judge told me that he’d considered declaring a mistrial rather than let the case go forward. He regretted that he didn’t do it after the defendant was found guilty. The judge was pondering voiding the verdict and ordering a new trial.
Then, the judge looked at me, his face a mask of deep concern, and explained. “I know you teach trial strategy to lawyers all over the place and I know you’ve written several trial strategy books. I know you do post-conviction relief as well. I want to ask you a question: Of all of the lawyers that you see in the courtroom, what percentage do you think are competent?”
I pondered the question for a moment and replied with a question. “What percentage do you think are competent, Your Honor?”
The judge sighed, dug his fork into his salad, and shrugged. “Maybe 30 percent.”
“I think it’s more like 20 percent,” I said.
The judge looked at me and shook his head. “I was going to say 20 percent, but I thought maybe I was being harsh.”
The judge then told me about his frustrations. Each week defendants come to court with both appointed and retained attorneys and all too often the attorneys don’t know even the basic facts of their cases. They come to court “winging it,” the judge said. “They’re trying to handle cases without having to do any work. They aren’t earning their money and they aren’t helping their clients.”
Even worse, the judge said, these lawyers don’t know the basic elements of how to conduct simple hearings like motions to suppress, motions to limit evidence, or even basic plea hearings.
“We’ve got an epidemic of incompetent – or lazy – lawyers,” the judge said sadly.
We talked about recent jury trials over which the judge had presided. He said the lawyers didn’t know how to strike a jury, offer an opening argument, cross-examine witnesses, make valid legal objections, make appropriate motions, argue a closing argument, handle a charge conference. In short, it was as if they’d never been to law school.
The judge also complained that the new contract system in Alabama, where lawyers are paid a flat monthly fee from the state to take indigent defense cases – without having to file separate billings per case – was a failure.
“These lawyers are taking that steady monthly check and not doing the work,” the judge said. “I can tell. They think I can’t tell that they’re not prepared, but it’s obvious.”
I explained to the judge that the reason I write trial strategy law books and the reason I teach trial strategy seminars is to try and motivate lawyers to become better trial practitioners.
A full 1/3 of my practice is fixing the mistakes of other lawyers. Rule 32 petitions in Alabama, and habeas corpus petitions in federal court, are used by lawyers to void a wrongful conviction and get that wrongfully convicted person a new trial.
To succeed with these petitions, one of the things you have to allege is incompetency of the trial lawyer. The standard is this: But for the incompetency of the trial lawyer, there would have been a different result, such as a verdict of not guilty.
Sadly, it’s not very hard to reach that standard in most cases.
I told the judge the biggest problem I see is that most lawyers try their cases only on the facts. They analyze their cases only on the facts. If the defendant is caught red handed and confesses, these lawyers throw up their hands and tell the client to take a plea.
These lawyers don’t recognize that a criminal trial is like the famous five level chess board on Mr. Spock’s desk in Star Trek.
Lawyers are taught in law school to try their cases on three things: 1) the law; 2) the facts; and 3) the rules of criminal procedure. I explain in my seminars they also must be tried on 4) the poker and 5) the human psychology of the people in the system.
Lawyers who play poker are better lawyers than lawyers who don’t. Poker is a game of strategy, risk-taking, bluffing and knowing when to show cards or hold them. You also have to psych out your opponent.
All of the bad lawyers I see simply try their cases on the facts and the sequence of events. Period. You can hold a poker hand of two 2 cards and win a trial. You gotta know how to use the procedures and the poker in your favor. I’ve won trials where my client was caught dead to rights but the police or the prosecution violated a rule of procedure, voiding the evidence they seized. It happens often. It’s my job to win, using any of the above-listed elements to do so.
Sadly, I don’t see the bulk of lawyers trying to improve their skills. I wish I did, but I don’t.
Thankfully, 20 out of 100 lawyers care about their performance, care about their clients and work their butts off to win their cases. Sadly, that leaves another 80 percent that need to learn how to do their jobs or find another line of work.
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore,,no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Monday, July 14, 2014
Judges cite their pet peeves regarding courthouse behavior and give insight into their insulation from the woes of the common citizen in their courts
A recent article on al.com focused on complaints circuit court judges in Alabama have about the people who come to their courts.
As I read the article, it reinforced for me that most judges become insulated and forget the daily struggles often afflicting the people summoned to appear before them. The article mentioned pet peeves of these judges, and their responses were proof that our judges don't get it.
Here are there pet peeves:
1) Defendant late for court. Most criminal defendants are dirt poor. They have unreliable cars or rely on public transport. Neither are dependable. In rural counties with no public transport, defendants often don't have any way at all to court.
2) People talking in the gallery. Court takes all day usually. Try sitting completely silent all day. Judges don't do it either.
3) People using cell phones. Cell phones are also used for reading books and magazines, looking up important information on the web, emailing the office. Many defendants who have cell phones are single parents trying to manage their kids, locate or confirm their kids whereabouts, or trying to placate a boss who's pissed they're in court.
4) Small children making noises. Many poor defendants are single mothers with no one to keep their kids if they have to go to court. Often they have no daycare and often have no family to rely on.
5) A defendant interrupting them. Defendants usually interrupt because they don't understand. They are terrified. The judge is speaking in legalese. (Judges, in their infinite arrogance, think defendants understand the complex stuff we say at the bench. Trust me, they don't. It's like a deer in the headlights. After a hearing, even a hearing where the defendant has answered questions, they can't recall a thing that occurred because they were so scared.
6) A defendant, or anyone in the gallery, falling asleep or keeping their head down. "We have had to wake people up before," Jefferson County Circuit Judge Virginia Vinson noted. Most criminal defendants work blue collar jobs. Many work two jobs or double shifts to survive. Church is a quiet, comfy place, just like church. In that person's shoes, you'd fall asleep, too. I saw a prosecutor scream at a woman one day and threaten her with jail for dozing in court. I interrupted the prosecutor and told her she had no legal authority to do that. The woman told me later she worked three shifts in two days and was exhausted.
7) Defendants who don't say their "maams" or "sirs" when responding to questions. Awe, prickly, prickly. Simple yesses and nos are sufficient. One judge loses his cookies if someone, anyone, answers with "OK." Seriously? Grow up.
8) People who wear hats in court. Most blue collar folks who wear ball caps, etc., forget they even have them on. Most apologize and take them off when asked by a bailiff.
9) A defendant who smells of whiskey or beer (that will usually mean a trip to jail). This is contempt of court. Often the defendant who smells of booze tanked up before court because they're certain the courts are unfair and they are convinced they're going to jail anyway.
10) A defendant who slumps in their chair. Oh, really? I see lawyers, cops, witnesses... all manner of people slumping. Grow up.
11) People dressed inappropriately, such as Judge Pulliam whining about shirts with marijuana emblems. Hey, it's called the First Amendment. You can wear what emblem you want so long as its not obscene. How many times have I seen Bob Wilters, from the bench, give shit to someone wearing an Auburn emblem. Give me a break. Oh, and marijuana is legal in several states, thus the marijuana leaf is indeed a First Amendment commentary.
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore,,no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Richard Jensen wins reversal and remand of felony probation revocation
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals today reversed and remanded the probation revocation of Tami Hinkle, who had pled guilty to theft back in 2009. Hinkle was found in violation of her probation for being arrested on new theft charges and sentenced to 10 years in prison on April 3, 2014 by Madison County Circuit Judge James P. Smith.
Richard Jensen, Hinkle's defense attorney, argued during the April hearing that the probation revocation hearing was improper, that Hinkle had a right to a two-part hearing process required by Alabama law and by the United States Supreme Court rulings in Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, two cases from the early 1970s which require a probationer to be arraigned and then given a full separate hearing. The initial hearing is supposed to be a formal notification of the charge and then a separate trial on the merits is held later.
Jensen objected at the April hearing and told the trial judge that Alabama law required two separate hearings. Jensen told Smith he'd never formally informed Hinkle of the charges. Smith overruled Jensen's objections, saying, "All right. We do this pretty informally in this county. Everybody who handles these knows that once a -- if you file an appearance in a delinquency case, the report is in the file. There's not like any magic. You don't have to file magic motions to get a copy of the delinquency report. You can just go to the file and get it."
Smith revoked Hinkle's probation and sentenced her to ten years and Jensen filed an appeal to the Alabama appeals court.
The appeals court agreed with Jensen's argument on behalf of Hinkle and reversed Smith's revocation of Hinkle's probation and remanded the case back for a two-step revocation process.
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore,,no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
Richard Jensen, Hinkle's defense attorney, argued during the April hearing that the probation revocation hearing was improper, that Hinkle had a right to a two-part hearing process required by Alabama law and by the United States Supreme Court rulings in Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, two cases from the early 1970s which require a probationer to be arraigned and then given a full separate hearing. The initial hearing is supposed to be a formal notification of the charge and then a separate trial on the merits is held later.Jensen objected at the April hearing and told the trial judge that Alabama law required two separate hearings. Jensen told Smith he'd never formally informed Hinkle of the charges. Smith overruled Jensen's objections, saying, "All right. We do this pretty informally in this county. Everybody who handles these knows that once a -- if you file an appearance in a delinquency case, the report is in the file. There's not like any magic. You don't have to file magic motions to get a copy of the delinquency report. You can just go to the file and get it."
The appeals court agreed with Jensen's argument on behalf of Hinkle and reversed Smith's revocation of Hinkle's probation and remanded the case back for a two-step revocation process.
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore,,no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
Cops can't search cell phones without a warrant
Cops can’t search cell phones without a warrant
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down another pro-accused ruling recently that further protects the rights of people when they encounter police.
In Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, 573 US ___ (2014), the SCOTUS said cops can no longer search the data of a cell phone without a warrant.
This means that cops can no longer grab the cell phone of someone they’ve stopped and look through that cell phone for evidence. They also can’t make you show it to them.
Cops like to do this when they stop someone and accuse that person of possessing or selling drugs.
The SCOTUS said cops can only examine the physicality of the cell phone to make sure it is not a weapon and, once determining that it’s not a weapon, they are not allowed to go further.
Cops are not allowed to search the data on a cell phone because the data is not a danger to anyone.
The court said bluntly that there is a substantial privacy interest at stake when digital data is at issue because people today use their cell phones as personal data centers for their daily lives.
So, make sure your cell phone is locked at all times. Make sure if a cop challenges you and grabs your cell phone that you do not unlock it for him, nor give him permission to see the data. Make him get a warrant.
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore,,no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down another pro-accused ruling recently that further protects the rights of people when they encounter police.
In Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, 573 US ___ (2014), the SCOTUS said cops can no longer search the data of a cell phone without a warrant.
This means that cops can no longer grab the cell phone of someone they’ve stopped and look through that cell phone for evidence. They also can’t make you show it to them.
Cops like to do this when they stop someone and accuse that person of possessing or selling drugs.
Cops are not allowed to search the data on a cell phone because the data is not a danger to anyone.
The court said bluntly that there is a substantial privacy interest at stake when digital data is at issue because people today use their cell phones as personal data centers for their daily lives.
So, make sure your cell phone is locked at all times. Make sure if a cop challenges you and grabs your cell phone that you do not unlock it for him, nor give him permission to see the data. Make him get a warrant.
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore,,no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Even if your appeals fail, you can still overturn your conviction!
There is a legal process in Alabama that gives people convicted of crimes one more shot at overturning their criminal conviction.
It's called a Petition for Relief from Conviction, or a Rule 32 Petition.
It's fairly complicated, but I handle a lot of them and we've had good success in getting people the relief they want.
Understand this, most Rule 32 petitions are won on appeal as you have to try the petition with the judge who convicted you, but, when you are successful you either are set free (such as in a case where the court had no jurisdiction to make you stand trial at all) or you get sent back to the trial court for a new trial.
Rule 32 Petitions are complex and cause great commotion because you have to allege things that lawyers don't like to allege about other lawyers and judges, such as your defense lawyer was incompetent or the judge was biased against you.
It takes a lawyer who is willing to piss off everyone in the courthouse to bring justice to you.
As a lawyer passionately devoted to the cause of justice, I take Rule 32 cases because I want the system to work properly. I'm not a go along to get along lawyer, and I don't play golf with judges.
My job is to win for my client.
If you've been convicted wrongfully, you have a very short window of time to file a Rule 32.
You have one year from the certificate of judgment, which is to say one year from the day your right to appeal expired or from the day the appeals courts ruled on your case. There are some instances where that one year time bar is waived, such as when the court had no jurisdiction to try you at all.
If you believe you have been wrongfully convicted, or if you believe your trial lawyer did a terrible job and you were convicted as a result, contact me as soon as you can.
I want to help.
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore,,no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
It's called a Petition for Relief from Conviction, or a Rule 32 Petition.
It's fairly complicated, but I handle a lot of them and we've had good success in getting people the relief they want.
Understand this, most Rule 32 petitions are won on appeal as you have to try the petition with the judge who convicted you, but, when you are successful you either are set free (such as in a case where the court had no jurisdiction to make you stand trial at all) or you get sent back to the trial court for a new trial.
Rule 32 Petitions are complex and cause great commotion because you have to allege things that lawyers don't like to allege about other lawyers and judges, such as your defense lawyer was incompetent or the judge was biased against you.
It takes a lawyer who is willing to piss off everyone in the courthouse to bring justice to you.
As a lawyer passionately devoted to the cause of justice, I take Rule 32 cases because I want the system to work properly. I'm not a go along to get along lawyer, and I don't play golf with judges.
If you've been convicted wrongfully, you have a very short window of time to file a Rule 32.
You have one year from the certificate of judgment, which is to say one year from the day your right to appeal expired or from the day the appeals courts ruled on your case. There are some instances where that one year time bar is waived, such as when the court had no jurisdiction to try you at all.
If you believe you have been wrongfully convicted, or if you believe your trial lawyer did a terrible job and you were convicted as a result, contact me as soon as you can.
I want to help.
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore,,no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Richard Jensen Criminal Defense Attorney recognized as Top 100 National Trial Lawyer
HUNTSVILLE, AL. -- Richard Jensen Criminal Defense Attorney was recognized this week as a National Trial Lawyer Top 100 Trial Lawyer.
This designation is given to "a premier group of attorneys that practice criminal defense or civil plaintiff law," according to Ed Hershewe, president of National Trial Lawyers.
The honor is "extended only to those individuals who exemplify superior qualifications, trial results, and leadership," Hershewe said.
The National Trial Lawyers evaluated Jensen's qualifications and recognized him for his "performance as an exceptional trial lawyer in the practice of criminal defense law."
The National Trial Lawyers board of directors include such luminary attorneys as Mark Geragos, Gloria Allred, Roy Black, Morris Dees (also an Alabama lawyer), and Mike Papantonio.
"I am honored to receive the recognition from the National Trial Lawyers," Jensen said. "Every day my goal is to win for my clients, no matter how desperate their situation is. I love being a criminal defense lawyer and each day I love going to battle for my clients. This recognition is humbling, and it inspires me to work even harder."
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore,,no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
This designation is given to "a premier group of attorneys that practice criminal defense or civil plaintiff law," according to Ed Hershewe, president of National Trial Lawyers.
The honor is "extended only to those individuals who exemplify superior qualifications, trial results, and leadership," Hershewe said.
The National Trial Lawyers evaluated Jensen's qualifications and recognized him for his "performance as an exceptional trial lawyer in the practice of criminal defense law."
The National Trial Lawyers board of directors include such luminary attorneys as Mark Geragos, Gloria Allred, Roy Black, Morris Dees (also an Alabama lawyer), and Mike Papantonio.
"I am honored to receive the recognition from the National Trial Lawyers," Jensen said. "Every day my goal is to win for my clients, no matter how desperate their situation is. I love being a criminal defense lawyer and each day I love going to battle for my clients. This recognition is humbling, and it inspires me to work even harder."
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore,,no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Supreme Court sides with employers, destroys discrimination laws
The incremental destruction of the common person continued when the Supreme Court of the United States voted 5/4 today to take away the rights of workers who have been discriminated against and made it virtually impossible for a worker to punish employers who retaliate against the worker who files a discrimination complaint.
The ruling was so striking that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who leads the Court's liberal wing, read her dissenting opinions aloud in open court. This is never done.
Ginsburg virtually begged Congress to overturn the court's actions.
Here's the way law used to work until today. If a person was subjected to discrimination, he was required to report that to his supervisor. If his supervisor failed to act, then it could be presumed that the supervisor's actions were representative of the employer, in short the supervisor's lack of action made his employer liable for the discrimination. The SCOTUS decided today to insert a layer of deniability between bosses and their employers. They did this by changing the definition of supervisor.
The SCOTUS ruled that for a person to be considered a supervisor under the law, that person must be able to hire and fire someone. This holding sharply limits the ability of workers to complain against their employers and harder for workers to blame the employer for the actions of their immediate supervisors. This will make it virtually impossible for a worker to blame a business for a co-worker's racism or sexism. Why? Because all a company has to do is claim a "supervisor" can't hire and fire, thus he's not a supervisor. This is just another magic trick, another example of the government playing Wizard of Oz, shouting "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
The SCOTUS further ruled that victims must prove employers would not have taken action against them but for their intention to retaliate. In short, an employee has to prove that someone above his supervisor was behind the discrimination and prove that the discrimination and retaliation was specifically for the purpose of getting even with the employee for filing a discrimination complaint. In short, if you complain you're a victim of discrimination, you've got a target painted on your back and no law to defend you.
The ruling outraged the liberal voice on the Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent that the SCOTUS had "corralled Title VII," a law designed to stop discrimination in the nation's workplaces. "Both decisions dilute the strength of Title VII in ways Congress could not have intended," Ginsburg said. She then
virtually begged Congress to change the law and overturn the court. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito shook his head as Ginsburg read her dissent of his opinion. "The court's disregard for the realities of the workplace means that many victims of workplace harassment will have no effective remedy," she said.
Ginsburg made history when she stood firm in defense of workers, when she said, "Deferring to the powerful at the expense of the powerless, the Supreme Court majority has imposed a heavier burden for victims of workplace harassment and discrimination seeking justice in our court. This decision makes it far easier for employers to evade responsibility for discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Today, the ball again lies in Congress' court to correct this court's wayward interpretations of Title VII," she said. Bravo, Justice Ginsburg.
In the first case, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, Case No. 12-484, the hospital appealed a $3 million judgment against it by a doctor who proved that he had been black-balled by a hospital supervisor, which presented him from being hired by another hospital.
In the second case, Vance v. Ball State University, 11-556, Maetta Vance, who worked as a caterer at the university, accused a co-worker of racial harassment and retaliation in 2005. Vance sued the school under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying the university was liable since Davis was her supervisor. But a federal judge threw out her lawsuit, saying that since Davis could not fire Vance, she was only a co-worker, and since the university had taken corrective action, it was not liable for Davis' actions. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, and Vance appealed to the Supreme Court.
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
The ruling was so striking that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who leads the Court's liberal wing, read her dissenting opinions aloud in open court. This is never done.
Ginsburg virtually begged Congress to overturn the court's actions.
Here's the way law used to work until today. If a person was subjected to discrimination, he was required to report that to his supervisor. If his supervisor failed to act, then it could be presumed that the supervisor's actions were representative of the employer, in short the supervisor's lack of action made his employer liable for the discrimination. The SCOTUS decided today to insert a layer of deniability between bosses and their employers. They did this by changing the definition of supervisor.
The SCOTUS ruled that for a person to be considered a supervisor under the law, that person must be able to hire and fire someone. This holding sharply limits the ability of workers to complain against their employers and harder for workers to blame the employer for the actions of their immediate supervisors. This will make it virtually impossible for a worker to blame a business for a co-worker's racism or sexism. Why? Because all a company has to do is claim a "supervisor" can't hire and fire, thus he's not a supervisor. This is just another magic trick, another example of the government playing Wizard of Oz, shouting "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
The SCOTUS further ruled that victims must prove employers would not have taken action against them but for their intention to retaliate. In short, an employee has to prove that someone above his supervisor was behind the discrimination and prove that the discrimination and retaliation was specifically for the purpose of getting even with the employee for filing a discrimination complaint. In short, if you complain you're a victim of discrimination, you've got a target painted on your back and no law to defend you.
The ruling outraged the liberal voice on the Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent that the SCOTUS had "corralled Title VII," a law designed to stop discrimination in the nation's workplaces. "Both decisions dilute the strength of Title VII in ways Congress could not have intended," Ginsburg said. She then
virtually begged Congress to change the law and overturn the court. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito shook his head as Ginsburg read her dissent of his opinion. "The court's disregard for the realities of the workplace means that many victims of workplace harassment will have no effective remedy," she said.
Ginsburg made history when she stood firm in defense of workers, when she said, "Deferring to the powerful at the expense of the powerless, the Supreme Court majority has imposed a heavier burden for victims of workplace harassment and discrimination seeking justice in our court. This decision makes it far easier for employers to evade responsibility for discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Today, the ball again lies in Congress' court to correct this court's wayward interpretations of Title VII," she said. Bravo, Justice Ginsburg.
In the second case, Vance v. Ball State University, 11-556, Maetta Vance, who worked as a caterer at the university, accused a co-worker of racial harassment and retaliation in 2005. Vance sued the school under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying the university was liable since Davis was her supervisor. But a federal judge threw out her lawsuit, saying that since Davis could not fire Vance, she was only a co-worker, and since the university had taken corrective action, it was not liable for Davis' actions. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, and Vance appealed to the Supreme Court.
Required by Alabama law: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the services of other lawyers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)