|
I am investigating filing a discrimination complaint or complaints.
Either in california state jurisdiction, or federal jurisdiction, or both.
Can I file complaints with both, and decide which venue looks more promising
later?
Which is more likely to pursue leads and gather witness
testimony, feds or state?
This probably qualifies as a "reverse" discrimination case.
Thanks...
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, "z" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote:
I am investigating filing a discrimination complaint
or complaints either in california state jurisdiction,
or federal jurisdiction, or both. Can I file complaints
with both, and decide which venue looks more promising
later?
If you are referring to a would-be lawsuit conditioned on your first
filing a claim with the EEOC or with a comparable state agency in a
place where there is such, it is neither necessary nor proper to file
the same grievance with more than one such agency.
Correlatively, in states (like Calif.) which may have a state statute
making suable in a state court claims that would be also suable in a
U.S. federal district court pursuant to (federal) Tit. VII or to
whatever other federal anti-discrimination law to which you may be
referring, it is not proper to commence both a state court and a
federal court lawsuit seeking redress for the same underlying alleged
law-prohibited discriminatory acts.
Which is more likely to pursue leads and gather witness
testimony, feds or state?
What generally matters most is the degree of MERIT (or not) to the
underlying claim(s), not whether to sue in a state compared with
federal court. Meanwhile, the scope of available pretrial discovery
procedures is comparable for most purposes regardless whether the
lawsuit is in a Calif. state or Calif. federal district court.
Concededly, it is at least theoretically arguable that there might be
a (comparatively very few) number of kinds of cases in which there
might be reasons to prefer one tribunal over another; but in such a
case, which to chose will not be meaningfully determinable just from
the sort of generality which is all that your posting/query provides
and, instead, would depend on careful evaluation of the particular
realistically provable facts of the specific would-be lawsuit.
But your apparently implied presumption that, over all, a federal
district court generally is to be preferred to a Calif. state court of
comparalbe authority, or vice versa, is (as a general matter) not
correct.
This probably qualifies as a "reverse" discrimination case.
The term " 'reverse' discrimination" is a misnomer: Either there has
been statutorily prohibited discrimination that is realistically
provable by reason of the would-be plaintiff's race or by reason of
the would-be plaintiff's nationality or whatever is the other
statutory "No! No!!" complained of, or ther hasn't been. This isn't a
"reverse" kind of Thing.
Thanks...
|
| |
| |
Thanks for the response.
Of course merit is a factor, as it is with every case.
For your information, the problem in my estimation
is not so much merit as it is witness intimidation
(and at a higher level, perhaps lawyer intimidation ;-).
And in theory, with overlapping jurisdictional bounds,
it should not matter which venue is chosen to pursue
a given case.
And of course, there is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. I was
just using a shorthand to attempt
to communicate a detail in as brief a manner as possible.
(Mea culpa.)
I was mainly just interested in practical tips, not theory.
Thanks for the useful info,
-z
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, re. the would-be unlawful discriminatory
practices claim s/he said s/he was investigating, "z" <x@y.z.invalid>
further wrote:
I was mainly just interested
in practical tips, not theory.
Herewith some practical tips, not theory:
- Very thoroughly, carefully, and yet coherently
collate what you contend are the facts which
prove the unlawful discrimination complained of.
- In so doing, be willfullycold-bloodedly dis-
passionate (i.e., skeptical) about your version
of those facts so as, realistically and also fairly
-stated, to anticipate what the would-be adverse
party probably will contend then answer not just
for yourself but, more importantly, for what the
eventual judge should decide if mediation doesn't
succeeed:
Why should a neutral and fair-minded
person accept and adopt your version
rather than that other party's version
of the facts?
- File your EEOC or comparable agency discrimi-
natory practices charge as quickly as practicable
after the events at issue and, unless it compara-
tively very quickly thereafter becomes apparent
that a settlement is realistic, as persuasively as
you can request a "right to sue" determination/
letter sooner rather than later.
- If you opt to sue, actually read (carefully) then
comply with FRCP 8 and 9 or, if you sue in a state
court, the state's corresponding/comparable rules.
Thanks for the useful info,
If you are like too many others, beecause all the above is obvious,
and yet because the obvious too often is the most difficult to
perceive, it is very likely that youwill have overlooked the above
useful info.
|
| |
| |
|
