Friday, June 12, 2015

UPDATED: Plaintiff's Answer Date Extended To June 25, 2015 -- In "What Makes A Bully?" FMLA Post Trial Motion

Please take the poll at top left margin. As a reader, what do YOU think? Was this a bit of bullying/overreach, or prudent post trial motion practice -- to seek return of what would putatively be the Merck shareholders' $68,000 (which effort I've noted may cost well over $100,000 in additional legal fees -- to ultimately recover the $68,000, from a. . . mom)? You may have your say. See at left.

I write a smallish update to this item, this morning, simply to indicate that the very able Judge Chesler has granted the plaintiff some additional time to answer Merck's motion for taxation of costs, here.

And, as I said on Monday, the law plainly allows this sort of odious post trial motion practice behavior -- I just find it. . . a little over the top, and immoral, truthfully.

As I said before, she is an individual, facing down a global public company with annual revenues of well over $40 billion a year.

And, as I said before, she made out a good faith case. The jury didn't find her way, but it was clearly a good faith case (in my opinion -- and federal District Court (NJ Dist.) Judge Chesler's -- based on his prior rulings).

. . . .So Ordered: Answer In Opposition Now Due June 25, 2015. . .

I will also note that in the wake of her loss, several members of Congress are again calling for new legislation to afford moms (like her) greater protections, at law. And that bastion of old line capitalism on Wall Street, Goldman Sachs & Co., just expanded its paid paternity/maternity leave policies on Tuesday -- though I'd be cautious about drawing a direct connection to the outcome in this case -- as to the Goldman movements. Previously, Virgin Atlantic had granted a full year, to its employees -- as well.

Onward, then. Still not sure how to handle your disclosures -- about potentially blended/entangled parenthood, here.

No comments: