Paula Deen Racial-Slur Claims Are Dismissed

[TexasTowelie]

Source: AP

A federal judge in Georgia has thrown out race discrimination claims by a former Savannah restaurant manager whose lawsuit against Paula Deen ended up causing the celebrity cook to lose a big slice of her culinary empire.

Lisa Jackson sued Deen and her brother, Bubba Hiers, last year saying she was subjected to sexual harassment and racist attitudes during the five years she worked at their restaurant, Uncle Bubba's Seafood and Oyster House.

But U.S. District Court Judge William T. Moore Jr. ruled Monday that Jackson, who is white, has no standing to sue them for race discrimination.

The ruling leaves intact Jackson's sexual harassment claims.

Read more: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20725006,00.html

---

I guess someone with standing will get the opportunity to sue Paula Deen in a separate lawsuit.

[Xipe Totec]

1. I'm no judge, but that's some wicked awsome legal contortions.

To white to sue.

[Skittles]

2. yup

I am white and I would consider a workplace where I routinely saw racism offensive and hostile

[Xipe Totec]

3. Exactly! nt

[happyslug]

4. But if the racism was NOT directed at you, where is the loss?

Remember discrimination suits about recovery for losses due to the discrimination. If I heard comments that were racist, but not directed at me, nor affected me economically, I would have suffered not loss and thus no standing to sue.

On the other hand, if I suffered a harm for I tried to protect someone from such racism, then I would have a cause of action. That I was white would NOT prohibit me from suing for racial discrimination, that I aided someone of another "Race" and was punished for it, would be enough to show racism. That does NOT appear to be the case in this case. The Plaintiff added racism to booster the claim of sexism and then failed to show HOW the racism could have harmed the Plaintiff.

The problem in this case, the plaintiff sued for sexual and racial discrimination. Please remember the sexual discrimination complaint survives this ruling. This ruling is based on the Judge determining that the Plaintiff has failed to show HOW the Plaintiff was harmed due to the alleged racism of the Defendant. Remember the real issue is HARM and LOSS, not racism or even sexism. It is the HARM and LOSS you suffer due to racism or sexism you can sue for, not just racism and sexism by themselves. You have to show SOME HARM, SOME LOSS, and then put a dollar value on it. If no harm or loss the dollar value is Zero and thus no grounds for a recovery for damages.

All the court ruled that the allegation of Racism did NOT include or was based on any evidence that support harm to the Plaintiff. The sexism charges do show possible harm to the Plaintiff, and thus loss and thus the Plaintiff can recover for, and thus will continue to trial.

[TexasTowelie]

8. You got it

and that is why I included the comment about standing at the end of the OP.

[WinkyDink]

16. "Racist offensiveness" wasn't the accusation; "racial discrimination" was. How can a White commit

racial discrimination against another White (substitute any other races for both parties that you want)?

[Zoeisright]

5. That's fucking ridiculous.

Hopefully some African-American employees will sue that bitch.

[Earth_First]

6. Using a misogynist phrase to call out racism...

Goodness.

[Beacool]

14. It's not OK to call any woman a "bitch" on this site.

[whopis01]

19. It is not OK to do that anywhere. n/t

[alp227]

20. Not even if a woman does so?

I think "Zoeisright" is a woman unless i'm wrong.

[Beacool]

22. I don't think it's right to call women bitches.

It's also frowned here because it's considered a sexist term.

[alp227]

23. Sadly too many jurors on DU let it fly,

but i betcha they'd hide ANY post that used the N-word that ends in "-a" not "-er" (even if a black poster did so)!

[Beacool]

24. But of course.............

That goes without saying.

[SoapBox]

7. First...

ROFL.

Why? Because of exactly this..."ruled Monday that Jackson, who is white, has no standing to sue them for race discrimination." Where were Jackson's attorneys to have seen this coming? I'm not defending Deen and her brother, if and when the discrimination/language was used but if they are being sued on that particular basis...then bring forth someone that did indeed suffered "harm". Deen has virtually been destroyed because of various claims by Jackson, now partly dismissed. Bring on the "sexual harassment" charges and lets see a public trial over that...I'll lay odds it will never happen.

Just as in the Prop. 8 case (better known as Prop. HATE), the fuckers out of Arizona had "no standing" to over and over and over, bring their suit.

Now...food for argument. With all this stuff regarding Deen (again, not supporting her in her language), WHY IS IT that Rep. Steve King - IA (and other TeaPukeBagger types) can get away with ALL the racist shit that they toss out at Hispanics? How do we the people, ruin King's "empire"?

[TexasTowelie]

10. Because King's comments

have not create any economic loss to a party, thus the attorneys don't want to get involved.

[branford]

9. Most do not realize that racism alone is not technically illegal in the workplace.

Only racism that actually affects your terms and conditions of employment is grounds for legal action. If the plaintiff could not demonstrate how she specifically was harmed by the alleged racism, the judge was correct to dismiss that portion of her lawsuit.

Her sexual discrimination claims survived and will apparently go to trial.

[Jefferson23]

11. Someone will likely step up and sue her...which would be a good. n/t

[branford]

12. I would bet there will be no new meritorious claims.

Given the strict procedural, administrative and statute of limitations requirements for employment discrimination claims, both federal or state, the fact that her companies are now very sensitive to the issue, and the generally difficulty in winning these cases at all, I doubt if any new claims will emerge, and if they do, there merit may be questionable.

I also hope that no one employed by her actually suffered employment discrimination. That would not be "good."

I understand that you find her racially offensive, as do I, but that alone is not illegal in an employment context. The racism alleged must have demonstrably effected an employee's terms and conditions of employment to be actionable. This is notoriously difficult to prove in most cases.

[Jefferson23]

13. Really? I will not be surprised to see at least one, if not a joint suit. Under the law, Deen and Co

cannot retaliate against anyone even if they have testified in a lawsuit..which in this case
the parties have done just that. To prove discrimination is not an easy win, but listening to
the witnesses, it does not bode well for Deen. Did Deen in fact ask anyone other than an
African American to ring a bell for dinner? It appears she in fact wanted one particular person
for a specific narrative she hoped to express as a visual for her customers.

The deposition coupled with all of Deen's past behavior does not place her above a successful
suit by another party.

As they say, time will tell.

[branford]

15. The clock is certainly ticking for any new claims.

I am certainly no expert in the minutia of the Deen lawsuit, and you appear better informed. However, my legal instincts and some experience with employment claims lead me to believe that if there are any additional claimants, there would be a proverbial rush to the courthouse while the matter is fresh in the public consciousness.

However, the retaliation issue is certainly something worth considering, and you never know what's out there in any case.

My one concern is that individuals may try to bring claims without any real merit in order to profit off of Deen's current situation. As with any celebrity matter, careful scrutiny must be given to any new allegations. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that a new allegations would not in fact be meritorious.

You are correct, time will certainly tell.

[Jefferson23]

17. I would certainly agree that bogus jump on the band wagon claims could surface but

my initial response to the OP here was in reference to those who have already
been deposed. I should have clarified that earlier.

Welcome to DU, btw.

[branford]

18. Thanks for the welcome.

[alp227]

21. Clinton-nominated judge who also served as US Atty in GA under the Carter administration

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=1680&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na