Frivilous Lawsuit

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I think after his case is tossed out, he should serve some jail time. I really can't stand this guy and his waste of everyone's time.

Man Sues Angels Baseball team over promotion (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2440983)

I'm sorry, but a baseball team is NOT a public entity. It is a privately owned concern, and if, as a privately owned concern, you choose to give something to a specific group that is your choice and LEGAL RIGHT. Discrimination doesn't enter into the matter. This guy's logic seems the same to me as saying it is discrimination to charge children under 12 a lower fare at movies and other venues.

[kah]

I agree completely. What a jackass. I'm sure he won't be bitching on Father's Day. I'd have him banned from the stadium. As a private entity, they have every right to do so. Hell, I can kick anyone out of my bar that I so desire for no reason at all, so the Angels sure can.

[omicron]

yeah, this is the same kind of guy who sues because he can't be a waitress at Hooters or something.

Really, if I could go back in time, I'd stop by the Continental congress and add in a line to the Bill of Rights that says we can slap someone for stupid.

Omi

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

His name wasn't Romy, was it?

[Trazalca]

I was about to read the article, but then stopped at "denied a red nylon tote bag", and I refuse to go further.

There is NOTHING on this planet earth that would make me waste my eyeballs
on a story revolving around the prissy whining of any individual requiring
retribution for not receiving a stupid handbag. And anyone caught whining
over such must hand over their testicles at the exit gate of the baseball stadium,
and disappear over the Mexican border to save himself the shame of embarrassment to his country and race. :angry

His only saving grace would be to be eaten alive by rabid chupacabras.

[jwesty]

I'll play a little 'Devils Adovate' here... what I see wrong with it is that they were handing them out to every woman over the age of 18. If this trully was a Mother's Day give away then only mother's should have received it (by giving it to any female over 18 years of age, it negates the whole Mother's Day idea).

So in a way it is discrimination, if they're handing them out to women who aren't even mothers.

Where he's stepping over the line is when he says that males under the age of 18 should be entitled to the $4,000 in damages. Women under 18 supposedly weren't entitled to this free give away so neither should males under 18.

Having said all that... is this really worth it? If you're a prick... sure. It's only $4,000 and he's damned psychologist so you know he's making some money.

Also, what could negate this whole case is if the Angels did the same thing for Father's Day last year... if they did, then this whole thing should be thrown out. If not, then maybe he's on to something.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I'll play a little 'Devils Adovate' here... what I see wrong with it is that they were handing them out to every woman over the age of 18. If this trully was a Mother's Day give away then only mother's should have received it (by giving it to any female over 18 years of age, it negates the whole Mother's Day idea).

So in a way it is discrimination, if they're handing them out to women who aren't even mothers.

Where he's stepping over the line is when he says that males under the age of 18 should be entitled to the $4,000 in damages. Women under 18 supposedly weren't entitled to this free give away so neither should males under 18.

Having said all that... is this really worth it? If you're a prick... sure. It's only $4,000 and he's damned psychologist so you know he's making some money.

Also, what could negate this whole case is if the Angels did the same thing for Father's Day last year... if they did, then this whole thing should be thrown out. If not, then maybe he's on to something.

It is the "discrimination" part of this I object to. It is discrimination if a person is denied something they are LEGALLY ENTITLED TO because of race, religion, etc. A FREE GIVEAWAY by a PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY, to those to whom they choose to give IS NOT DISCRIMINATION. NO ONE IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO SOME FREE GIFT FROM SOME FREAKING CORPORATION. I mean, when I go into some place that has a birthday giveaway (free meal or whatever on your birthday), are they discriminating against everyone whose birthday is not the same day as mine when I get the free meal?

I think the Angel's probably created this problem for themselves by lying to this guy, quote below:

"The team responded to a complaint letter that Cohn wrote last June by sending him four tote bags and a letter stating the team "ran out of the item that day and had to order more."" Based on the article, they hadn't actually run out of the bags at the time.

I believe that is the root cause of this guy's complaint. He was lied to. The Angels didn't need to lie, they could have just told him the bags were for the women and he can't have one. That's what I would have told him.

I searched for this guy on the internet and he has a temporary state license as a psychologist here in CA that expires in June. However, the address on the license is under someone else's name when you try to find the phone #. I found the phone number for that address and it isn't under Michael Cohn. Additionally, I could find no listing of him with any of the psychologist's organizations, and there are no referrals for him as being involved in some kind of practice. Based on my research it appears Mr. Cohn has some financial concerns, since the house at the address listed for him is being listed by a real estate agent, and I suspect it is his own greed leading him along in this.

I don't know him, so I have only the information in the article, and my research upon which to form an opinion. So far, my opinion is the guy was talked into his suit by a lawyer believing the Angels would just offer a nice little cash settlement to him so they wouldn't incur the expense of going to court. If I was the Angels, I'd make sure Cohn's lawyer ends up disbarred, and that Cohn should face some sort of penalty for filing a frivilous lawsuit.