Ridiculous Lawsuit!

[ctenidae]

Seen this type of stuff in CT. Where special people's parents have good lawyers that are willing to do this for nothing, based on the settlement.
Next time they will sue McDonalds for lack of a good happy meal.

I ate a happy meal once. It didn't make me very happy. I asked for a refund, but did get a free dumb look.

 

[ccskier]

What a Ma$$hole, (yes I also live here). So many people in this state have their hands out looking for a freebie, this guy got one and is now sueing over it. I also have friends who have special needs children, they would be disgusted by this.

I am one for charities/helping out others, but people like that are rediculous. Biting the hand that feeds them. My mother is a school teacher, she asked my wife and I to do a "dress a doll" type of thing for one of her less fortunate students. We went out and spent a few hundred dollars on toys/clothes, etc.. The mother then shows up at the school in her brand new suv, smoking a butt, asking where the presents are. It put a bad taste in my mouth that she can afford a brand new $30k+ vehicle and probably $6/day on butts, but can't buy her kid gifts. I am waiting for her to now call me saying that the clothes no longer fit the kid and she is suing more over it unless I buy him new stuff this year.

 

[Johnskiismore]

As the story shocks me, it really dosen't surpise me. Pretty sad.

 

[ctenidae]

As the story shocks me, it really dosen't surpise me. Pretty sad.

I'm mostly shocked at my lack of surprise.

 

[hammer]

If those facts are what happened, I imagine it will get tossed out by the MCAD.

The problem is that they didn't...from the article:

But the staff would get another shock — last week, Wachusett Mountain was notified that the MCAD found probable cause to believe that it had discriminated against the boy. Both parties and their lawyers are required to attend a “conciliation conference” Jan. 23 in Springfield to explore “voluntary resolution.”

Outrageous...

 

[tjf67]

So how do you think the dad will explain to the kid that he can not go skiing there this year.

Well son Daddy being the money grubbing peace of crap that he is tried to exploit your shortcomming so mommy and daddy could benefit so they wont let you ski there anymore.
But dad they were so nice to me.
Son its time you learn. When someone is being that nice look for opportunites to take advantage of the kindness. Now go kick the dog

My take is the dad is the attorney.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Thanks for the update ct. I wonder what would have happened if the child had shown up on time for the group lesson. BTW, this isn't a CT or a MA problem, it's an American problem. Happens pretty much everyday, in every state.

 

[jaywbigred]

To be clear, at this point it's not a lawsuit. MCAD has issued a "Probable Cause" ruling, which means they're going to take a look at it. Next step is a meeting between the Complainant (Asshat) and the Respondent (Wachussett), to see if there is a mutually agreeable resolution. That resolution may be as simple as Wa saying "Sorry you felt offended or whatever" and that's it, or the Asshat may get all peeved and want to push it. MCAD can then determine yes or no on the discrimination issue. If they say "no", that ends it, since MCAD has jurisdiction. if they say "yes" (and I hope to hell they don't), then it goes to the court system.

Asshat can either have an attorney of his own (which will cost him money) or use an MCAD attorney to prosecute, which will cost the state money, but may end this faster.

Thank you for explaining procedurally what is actually going on here.

THIS IS NOT A CIVIL LAWSUIT SEEKING MONITARY DAMAGES!

My God people!

I love the rush to "hang the lawyers." Are people here sure that the kids father even has a lawyer?

Filing a complaint with a government agency does not require an attorney: http://www.mass.gov/mcad/documents/FILING A COMPLAINT.pdf

The procedure is purposefully simple. Why? To allow people who are legitimately being discriminated against to come forward.

After filing a complaint, there is, appropriately, a preliminary look taken at the legitimacy of the complaint. Here, the experts in the area, MCAD, deemed "probable cause" to exist, i.e. that the complaint is NOT, in fact, frivalous. This does not mean that the mountain is guilty of anything, but it does mean that the Father is not coming out of left field.

If the facts are as this article says they are, justice will be served in the end.

But ask yourself this:

1) Are you reading this with a pro-ski area bias perhaps?
2) Is the news media the most reliable source for information?
3) Does this article strike you as balanced journalism? Have we heard from the boy or the boy's father? Have we heard from MCAD? Is it possible we are only getting one side of the story?
4) Does rushing to judge anyone without all the facts do anyone any good? Does lambasting this Dad for seeking a nonmonetary resolution when he felt wronged help? Might doing so, in the future, silence another Dad, whose child WAS discriminated against?

Don't be part of a lynch mob. I think everyone here is smarter than that.

 

[hammer]

I guess what bothers me (and probably others) is that MCAD even saw probable cause to begin with...

 

[jaywbigred]

I guess what bothers me (and probably others) is that MCAD even saw probable cause to begin with...

Fair enough.

It makes me wonder if the situation is truly as one sided as the news article makes it out to be.

MCAD + actual Complaint = finding of Probable Cause

AZers + news article = finding of Frivalous Lawsuit


Makes you wonder, no?

Again, to be clear though, this does NOT mean that in any way am I agreeing that the mountain did anything wrong.

 

[wa-loaf]

Fair enough.

It makes me wonder if the situation is truly as one sided as the news article makes it out to be.

MCAD + actual Complaint = finding of Probable Cause

AZers + news article = finding of Frivalous Lawsuit


Makes you wonder, no?

Again, to be clear though, this does NOT mean that in any way am I agreeing that the mountain did anything wrong.

Damn, we all get wound up and someone has to ruin the fun by being reasononable. Sigh . . . :grin:

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Thank you for explaining procedurally what is actually going on here.

THIS IS NOT A CIVIL LAWSUIT SEEKING MONITARY DAMAGES!

My God people!

I love the rush to "hang the lawyers." Are people here sure that the kids father even has a lawyer?

Filing a complaint with a government agency does not require an attorney: http://www.mass.gov/mcad/documents/FILING A COMPLAINT.pdf

The procedure is purposefully simple. Why? To allow people who are legitimately being discriminated against to come forward.

After filing a complaint, there is, appropriately, a preliminary look taken at the legitimacy of the complaint. Here, the experts in the area, MCAD, deemed "probable cause" to exist, i.e. that the complaint is NOT, in fact, frivalous. This does not mean that the mountain is guilty of anything, but it does mean that the Father is not coming out of left field.

If the facts are as this article says they are, justice will be served in the end.

But ask yourself this:

1) Are you reading this with a pro-ski area bias perhaps?
2) Is the news media the most reliable source for information?
3) Does this article strike you as balanced journalism? Have we heard from the boy or the boy's father? Have we heard from MCAD? Is it possible we are only getting one side of the story?
4) Does rushing to judge anyone without all the facts do anyone any good? Does lambasting this Dad for seeking a nonmonetary resolution when he felt wronged help? Might doing so, in the future, silence another Dad, whose child WAS discriminated against?

Don't be part of a lynch mob. I think everyone here is smarter than that.

Your his lawyer, aren't you? :wink: It's not a pro-skier bias it's an anti-frivilous litigation bias people are reading this with. Let me ask you...... if this first step goes his way what's your call regarding a monetary resolution down the road?

Your right about more facts needed to personally judge this particular incident. Since it involves a juvenile not sure what will be public info. And so it goes........

 

[Marc]

Thank you for explaining procedurally what is actually going on here.

THIS IS NOT A CIVIL LAWSUIT SEEKING MONITARY DAMAGES!

My God people!

I love the rush to "hang the lawyers." Are people here sure that the kids father even has a lawyer?

Assuming for a moment all the information presented thus far is accurate, I'd be willing to bet an awful lot the father would be quite able to find a lawyer to represent him in a civil action against Wachusett. So hanging the lawyers, notably the sleezeballs, can probably just be a matter of autonomous subsequence at this point. In any case-

Both parties and their lawyers are required to attend a “conciliation conference” Jan. 23 in Springfield to explore “voluntary resolution.”

Filing a complaint with a government agency does not require an attorney: http://www.mass.gov/mcad/documents/FILING A COMPLAINT.pdf

The procedure is purposefully simple. Why? To allow people who are legitimately being discriminated against to come forward.

Also there are a lot of dumb people out there and the procedure must be simple enough for them to understand.

After filing a complaint, there is, appropriately, a preliminary look taken at the legitimacy of the complaint. Here, the experts in the area, MCAD, deemed "probable cause" to exist, i.e. that the complaint is NOT, in fact, frivalous. This does not mean that the mountain is guilty of anything, but it does mean that the Father is not coming out of left field.

Suggesting an agency under the same state government that gave us the Big Dig are "experts" on anything made me laugh.

If the facts are as this article says they are, justice will be served in the end.

But ask yourself this:

1) Are you reading this with a pro-ski area bias perhaps?

No, as a matter of fact, I'm a self loathing Wachusett skier. I am, however, taking into account the managements' and in particular, the Crowleys' past reputation into account against that of the father, whose reputation heretofore remains uknown by me.

2) Is the news media the most reliable source for information?

At this time, yes. And I don't even need them to be the *most* reliable, just adequately accurate to receive the fact in the case. The T&G also has a good reputation of reporting fairly (although one most note from whom the article comes, T&G staff or its owner BG and the NY Times Company, AP etc.).

3) Does this article strike you as balanced journalism? Have we heard from the boy or the boy's father? Have we heard from MCAD? Is it possible we are only getting one side of the story?

I'll go ahead and trust that the paper would have obtained the version of the story from MCAD or the father were it publicly available, but for obvious reasons, I'm guessing it is not.

4) Does rushing to judge anyone without all the facts do anyone any good? Does lambasting this Dad for seeking a nonmonetary resolution when he felt wronged help? Might doing so, in the future, silence another Dad, whose child WAS discriminated against?

While we don't know we have all the facts, certainly we can deduce certain things from the information as presented thus far. If everyone is comfortable with this position, let them retract it if such a situation arises. I'm not going to hold my breath, but then again, I don't care enough about this to take a position either.

Don't be part of a lynch mob. I think everyone here is smarter than that.

Careful, with the recent events of Columbia U and the T employee, allusion to such a concept will get you branded a racist. Or bigot.

 

[Marc]

Damn, we all get wound up and someone has to ruin the fun by being reasononable. Sigh . . . :grin:

I don't know, the math he showed doesn't seem all too far off for me.

 

[Marc]

Just so everyone is aware, the piece is not written in the style of a formal news piece because it isn't. Diane Williams writes only commentary for the T&G, not news articles. This would explain any perceived or overt bias in the column. Commentary typically isn't neutral, for obvious reasons.

 

[jaywbigred]

Just so everyone is aware, the piece is not written in the style of a formal news piece because it isn't. Diane Williams writes only commentary for the T&G, not news articles. This would explain any perceived or overt bias in the column. Commentary typically isn't neutral, for obvious reasons.

That's a very good point.

Unfair for me to expect it to be Formal News Piece.

But also, unsafe for other people to read it as such and make judgments based on that reading.

 

[bobbutts]

I know a business owner in MA and he complain about ridiculous stuff too, things I never heard of in Nevada or FL.. if you believe this author's perspective this one really goes above and beyond though.. just lame

 

[jaywbigred]

Your his lawyer, aren't you? :wink:

Heck no!! If you need a Will though, I am your man ;-)

an anti-frivilous litigation bias people are reading this with.

And a fair bias to have, given its effect on lift ticket prices, BUT one to keep in mind that you have when you are reading...

if this first step goes his way what's your call regarding a monetary resolution down the road?

I fail to see any evidence of discrimination in the material I have in front of me, which would, therefore, lead to $0.00 award to this family. A fun judge might, if he could find some wiggle room to do it, charge them the difference between what they paid for group lessons and the private lesson they received.

Since it involves a juvenile not sure what will be public info. And so it goes........

The case would still be public I believe, but the Boy/his family's name would not be published. Often these cases use initials to preserve identity.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Assuming for a moment all the information presented thus far is accurate, I'd be willing to bet an awful lot the father would be quite able to find a lawyer to represent him in a civil action against Wachusett. So hanging the lawyers, notably the sleezeballs, can probably just be a matter of autonomous subsequence at this point. In any case-





Also there are a lot of dumb people out there and the procedure must be simple enough for them to understand.



Suggesting an agency under the same state government that gave us the Big Dig are "experts" on anything made me laugh.



No, as a matter of fact, I'm a self loathing Wachusett skier. I am, however, taking into account the managements' and in particular, the Crowleys' past reputation into account against that of the father, whose reputation heretofore remains uknown by me.



At this time, yes. And I don't even need them to be the *most* reliable, just adequately accurate to receive the fact in the case. The T&G also has a good reputation of reporting fairly (although one most note from whom the article comes, T&G staff or its owner BG and the NY Times Company, AP etc.).



I'll go ahead and trust that the paper would have obtained the version of the story from MCAD or the father were it publicly available, but for obvious reasons, I'm guessing it is not.



While we don't know we have all the facts, certainly we can deduce certain things from the information as presented thus far. If everyone is comfortable with this position, let them retract it if such a situation arises. I'm not going to hold my breath, but then again, I don't care enough about this to take a position either.



Careful, with the recent events of Columbia U and the T employee, allusion to such a concept will get you branded a racist. Or bigot.

Hey Marc....I tried a Red Bull the other day and because I did not grow wings per their commercials I hurt myself since I was standing on top of a ladder at the time. We you represent me? good post btw!

 

[loafer89]

Ok This is Mrs Loafer just so you know. Alot of you have already meet our son Warren but you may not know Warren is ADHD this is something we have told to ever ski insructor that he has had since he has been 5 this whole sititutain is out of control instead of going after the ski area why is he not suiing his own wife or in this case most likly exwife she was the one to drop him off late to begin with she never informed them of any of his child limits and being the parent of one of the "Speical Needs Children" I find that alot of these laws that are suppose to help these kids only reenforces the fact that they are diffent and gives them a excuse not to succeed. Warren know he have ADHD but he also nows that there are standards he needs to meet or he will no be in any group setting and if this child was so out of control that the one on one lesson was the only way to get though to him then they should be grateful not upset Warrens ADHD thats our deal if he can not control himself and he puts other kids in danger then he is removed his issue should not effect others because he will have to deal with this his entire life better learn now. I feel really sorry for this child they are setting him up to fail.