Random Quote

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Finally! A protected class I am a member of

God forbid you be an ugly girl, 'course too pretty is also your doom, 'cause everyone harbors a secret hatred for the prettiest girl in the room.
- Ani Difranco, Singer and Song Writer

So I'm ugly. So what? I never saw anyone hit with his face.
- Yogi Berra, American Philosopher, Baseball Player and Manager

Craig Williams at May It Please the Court observes that "[y]ou can add 'ugly' to the protected classes of race, color, religion, sex, national origin and age, according to the California Supreme Court, who issued this opinion earlier this week in the case of Yanowitz v. L'Oreal."

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did you read the opinion ? If you posted about a decision without reading it, there is something seriously wrong with you. I mean, come on, we all like to bait the lay people (because, let's face it, we, as lawyers, hate them), but you are a judge. As an American, you should at least read things that you talk about.

First of all, this case did not arise under the US Constitution. Nor did it arise under the California constitution. It arose under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Therefore, whatever protection is available, is available because the legislature created it. If you wish to ignore the legislature (which it seems that you do), then you have no respect for the will of the people.

Second of all, the issue here was retaliation against someone who was not, as you put it, ugly.

Third of all, if you will actually read the opinion (which I am now sure that you did not, as it is your practice to just make this stuff up), you will see that based on the facts alleged, she was fired because she refused to fire someone who was – guess what – black. (P. 6 of the opinion says “dark skinned”).

Have Opinion Will Travel said...

You might consider lightening up a little. As diatribes go, yours contained far more vitriol than facts.

If you had actually bothered to read the post (note that it isn't very long) and been able to control your knee-jerk reaction, you might possibly have noticed the "tongue-in-cheek" headline and quotes and the fact that I expressed no opinion of my own but only linked to an analysis done by Craig Williams at May It Please the Court in which he makes some interesting points - whether you agree with them or not.

I'm not sure what you are accusing me of "making up" but there are links in the post that will take you to the actual opinion on the Supreme Court's website and to the MIPTC website nor did I make up the quotes.

By way, I did read the opinion - all 66 pages of it.

Anonymous said...

Oh, now I get it. Opinions of courts are only as good as the blog post that made fun of them.