Round Three in a Nutshell
V-Com Partition Destroyer|
aka Partition Commander
Round 3 Explanation.
The brief version:
To show retaliation Silverstein must establish:
Mattel claims, that when filed the counterclaim, that they believed that they were libeled, therefore that had a right to file the counterclaim. Mattel agrees that suspicious timing can imply illegal motive, but argues the timing is only because a counterclaim had to occur after a lawsuit was filed against them.
Mattel is technically right, but full of bull! Even if Mattel believed they were libeled, after the judgment was entered they knew they were not libeled and should have dropped their libel counterclaim. Olophius Perry, Deputy Director of the Los Angeles District Office of the EEOC was shocked that Mattel kept going after judgment was entered. Gregory Manousos of the MCAD was similarly shocked. Mattel is right that they could only file a counterclaim after a lawsuit was filed against them, but they ignore the fact that if they were really libeled, they could file a lawsuit without having to file a counterclaim. Mattel knew that they could file a lawsuit, not only counterclaims, for libel since they had lost a libel lawsuit against an attorney in California (Mattel v. Luce, et. al.). Mattel has not taken action against other who people libeled them.
Mattel also claims that since they did not retaliate in an employment related manner, that they are allowed to retaliate with impunity. This is also wrong. Under MGL c.151B, the ADA, and the FMLA is states that no person, not employer. If a person, as opposed to employer, is prohibited from retaliating, then how can it be claimed that only job status retaliation that is prohibited. In New York, the EEOC argued (and won) that an employer passing out fliers claiming that the women who complained of sexual harassment were prostitutes, child molesters, and drug dealers is illegal retaliation. In Passer v. American Chemical Soc., 935 F.2d 322 (D.C. Cir. 1991) the court ruled that canceling an award banquet is illegal retaliation. In Hashitmoto v.Dalton, 118 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 1997), the court ruled that retaliation show be construed broadly.
The EEOC acknowledges this in their writings of section 8 of the compliance guide. Both the courts and the EEOC recognized that this should be construed broadly. In recognition of this, Naomi Levin, special assistant to the commissioner of the EEOC, at the National Association of ADA Coordinators Conference stated that filing a libel lawsuit against a person who complains of an ADA violation is an extreme form of retaliation that the commissioner is concerned with.
What Mattel / TLC / MSI has done to Silverstein is akin to President Clinton suing Paula Jones for libel.
Shop Amazon's Outlet Deals in Computers, Office & Software Computers,
Another William Silverstein
site. Copyright © 2002-2013 William Silverstein. All rights
This site is copyrighted material and its use is subject to non-exclusive license. If you do not agree to the terms of this license, leave this site immediately, or you are bound by the terms of the license. Your use of this site signifies your agreement to be bound by the terms of this license. The use of this site is free for personal and non-commercial use - particularly for those wish to learn about and protect the rights of employees and those who oppose their abuse by employers and large corporations, but there are significant fees charged for certain other uses.
This page are the opinions of William Silverstein based on facts and information provided to him. This is not to be construed as legal advice. Mattel is the manufacturer of Barbie, Matchbox, and Hot Wheels. This site is neither approved nor endorsed by Mattel. All trademarks belong to their respective owners.