Judge approves $7m settlement for men suing bar over ‘ladies’ night’ admission fee

[xCivicx]

... is largely self-inflicted.

Please elaborate

 

[Hey_zeus]

Incels running amok

 

[Hoodoo Child]

Adding "Non-Binary" is what sealed the deal

 

[the cac mamba]

alleging a “ladies’ night” event at a San Diego bar discriminated against men and nonbinary people.

i'm so tired of this shyt 90% of people don't even know what it means

and these dudes are clowns. 7 million dollars and they got 25,000. lawyers in this country are scum

 

[Umoja]

-Yes, the winner is I get to be at a place that attracts women so I have a better opportunity to meet one I like. If you're an easy lick that's a personal problem & if your pride is wounded because of this you're sensitive as fukk.

You're a mark. It is the illusion of choice and superiority that gets you hooked.

The reality of the matter is you'd have a better chance at pulling women at a salsa or Yoga class, and you wouldn't have to get mugged off to succeed.

It is just sort of funny how people have had their self-esteem broken to the point that they'll patronise places relying on their thirst to charge them more than other customers.

 

[Umoja]

i'm so tired of this shyt 90% of people don't even know what it means

and these dudes are clowns. 7 million dollars and they got 25,000. lawyers in this country are scum

Do you know what a class action lawsuit is? They got 25k because that pot of money needs to exist for others who are part of thr claim.

The lawyers will receive a handsome payday but it is not 6,950,000.

Which brings me on to an error I made.

Are you aware that a judge can reject a settlement if he believes it undermines the law or is unfavorable to the public interest?
key word in thread title "approve" meaning the judge had to sign off on this.
If me and a third party came to settlement for a veteran discount discrimination lawsuit, a judge absolutely would have rejected it, so as not to set a precedent that people can go around suing people for offering veterans discounts

Are you aware of the circumstances that would have to exist for a judge to reject signing off on a settlement?

It is not going to occur where adults, who are of sound mind and have legal representation, enter into an agreement.

I suppose it is not an error, but I could have provided a more specific response. Generally speaking, settlements do not require the authorisation of a judge. Parties settle before making it to trial frequently.

It is required in this instance because it is a class action lawsuit. The judges concern would be avoiding a settlement that does not take into account the other people who are part of the class e.g.

If I sold a product that damaged 1000s of people and you as one of the iniured parties brought a case against me, a judge would bar a settlement agreement that had me pay you 10,000,000 whilst leaving £5000 a pot for everyone else.

The judge is not going to care much for the legal principles and how they relate to the facts. They're not going to pass judgement on it. This point is why companies settle even if they have a reasonable prospect at success. They might deem that the risk of having a precedent set is too steep as it would open the floodgates on other lawsuits.

 

[Big Boss]

 

[Umoja]

This.

Anyone with a brain understands a club, bar etc wants more women because that's what convinces men to show up (and spend). That's not discrimination.

That's not how discrimination works. The first step is establishing whether or not it exists which is pretty straightforward.

Legally, it is as simple as treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic.

If discrimination has been identified, the next step would be justifying it or finding an exception it falls into. I wanted to make an increased profit is poor justification; think about how this justification would apply to other matters.

The sort of thing the court would be looking for is that they were trying to achieve a positive action. If I was speaking on their behalf, I'd go down the road of pointing out that clubs are not a welcoming environment for women and that they were trying to increase their representation (leaning into the aspect of them taking part in a social/cultural form of entertainment as opposed to wanting to make more money).

 

[Dwayne_Taylor]

Im happily married so im not going to any night clubs, but it seems this would weed out women who are just there for attention and free drinks and leave you with more women who actually want to socialize and meet men

 

[OneManGang]

Ppl were cheering this on in here

How you have money to lawyer up and end ladies night but don’t wanna pay to get into a club full of ladies?

 

[AllHolosEve]

You're a mark. It is the illusion of choice and superiority that gets you hooked.
The reality of the matter is you'd have a better chance at pulling women at a salsa or Yoga class, and you wouldn't have to get mugged off to succeed.
It is just sort of funny how people have had their self-esteem broken to the point that they'll patronise places relying on their thirst to charge them more than other customers.

-You're a dumbass thinking this has anything to do with superiority because your self esteem is fragile & you see the idea from the perspective of a victim. Women getting in for cheap or free has never bothered me emotionally or hurt my self esteem.

 

[mson]

How gay do you have to be to set precedent to end Ladies' Night and access to hoes?

They want a sausage fest.

 

[Umoja]

-You're a dumbass thinking this has anything to do with superiority because your self esteem is fragile & you see the idea from the perspective of a victim. Women getting in for cheap or free has never bothered me emotionally or hurt my self esteem.

Kid, shut up.

 

[AllHolosEve]

Kid, shut up.

-I'm not a kid & I don't think I'll be doing that.