Well sure, but that still doesn't make it discrimination. And if he goes around accusing them of that with absolutely no proof, he could be sued for defamation of character... technically.
1) technically, no he couldn't. he could be sued, but it would never work. 2) he didn't go around accusing them of discrimination. he checked out his legal options and then went to their HR department and asked what was going on. inquiries and even filing lawsuits are not defamation. furthermore, defamation would not apply because kroger is a public entity and defamation is inapplicable in absence of intent. to prevail they would have to show he did it maliciously knowing it was false, and given the circumstances, there's no way they could prove it. they'd never survive a summary judgment. unless he totally fabricated a story and gave it to a newspaper to publish, he's not going to get sued for telling his friends or posting a blog saying kroger refused him a job becos he was disabled based on what happened here. and i'd say, in general, the facts he's provided here make his suspicion pretty reasonable. i think the fact that the second he mentioned legal inquiry into their decision they scrambled to toss him a job is rather telling. if they had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't have bothered.
1) technically, no he couldn't. he could be sued, but it would never work. 2) he didn't go around accusing them of discrimination. he checked out his legal options and then went to their HR department and asked what was going on. inquiries and even filing lawsuits are not defamation. furthermore, defamation would not apply because kroger is a public entity and defamation is inapplicable in absence of intent. to prevail they would have to show he did it maliciously knowing it was false, and given the circumstances, there's no way they could prove it. they'd never survive a summary judgment. unless he totally fabricated a story and gave it to a newspaper to publish, he's not going to get sued for telling his friends or posting a blog saying kroger refused him a job becos he was disabled based on what happened here. and i'd say, in general, the facts he's provided here make his suspicion pretty reasonable. i think the fact that the second he mentioned legal inquiry into their decision they scrambled to toss him a job is rather telling. if they had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't have bothered.
I'm beginning to like you a lot soulsinging!!
And so the lion fell in love with the lamb...,"
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
1) technically, no he couldn't. he could be sued, but it would never work. 2) he didn't go around accusing them of discrimination. he checked out his legal options and then went to their HR department and asked what was going on. inquiries and even filing lawsuits are not defamation. furthermore, defamation would not apply because kroger is a public entity and defamation is inapplicable in absence of intent. to prevail they would have to show he did it maliciously knowing it was false, and given the circumstances, there's no way they could prove it. they'd never survive a summary judgment. unless he totally fabricated a story and gave it to a newspaper to publish, he's not going to get sued for telling his friends or posting a blog saying kroger refused him a job becos he was disabled based on what happened here. and i'd say, in general, the facts he's provided here make his suspicion pretty reasonable. i think the fact that the second he mentioned legal inquiry into their decision they scrambled to toss him a job is rather telling. if they had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't have bothered.
He just accused them of discrimination right here. And if he goes around telling his friends and family that Kroeger discriminates, he could be sued. Technically it could result in Kroeger losing business because of his libelous actions. What are they teaching you in law school, anyway?
And you agreed and disagreed with me on the same point in consecutive sentences.
No he couldn't... oh, but yes he could. What?
I just said he could be sued, I didn't say he'd lose the lawsuit.
I have dogs instead of children... I'd rather ruin my carpet than my life.
He just accused them of discrimination right here. And if he goes around telling his friends and family that Kroeger discriminates, he could be sued. Technically it could result in Kroeger losing business because of his libelous actions. What are they teaching you in law school, anyway?
And you agreed and disagreed with me on the same point in consecutive sentences.
No he couldn't... oh, but yes he could. What?
I just said he could be sued, I didn't say he'd lose the lawsuit.
becos anyone can be sued for anything. my point was he has nothing to worry about. becos there is no way his posting here or what he tells his friends would ever survive in a defamation suit brought by kroger. i just got out of a class covering this very subject about 4 hours ago. kroger is a public entity and as such has an uphill battle on ANY defamation. he has nothing to fear by going around posting messages here, writing blogs, or blabbing to everyone he knows that kroger screwed him becos there is no malice involved and it's an opinion. unless he invented a story and a bunch of facts that they can show are false and published somewhere that is not the internet (like he set up a public interest piece with the local news network), he is perfectly fine.
Comments
1) technically, no he couldn't. he could be sued, but it would never work. 2) he didn't go around accusing them of discrimination. he checked out his legal options and then went to their HR department and asked what was going on. inquiries and even filing lawsuits are not defamation. furthermore, defamation would not apply because kroger is a public entity and defamation is inapplicable in absence of intent. to prevail they would have to show he did it maliciously knowing it was false, and given the circumstances, there's no way they could prove it. they'd never survive a summary judgment. unless he totally fabricated a story and gave it to a newspaper to publish, he's not going to get sued for telling his friends or posting a blog saying kroger refused him a job becos he was disabled based on what happened here. and i'd say, in general, the facts he's provided here make his suspicion pretty reasonable. i think the fact that the second he mentioned legal inquiry into their decision they scrambled to toss him a job is rather telling. if they had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't have bothered.
I'm beginning to like you a lot soulsinging!!
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
He just accused them of discrimination right here. And if he goes around telling his friends and family that Kroeger discriminates, he could be sued. Technically it could result in Kroeger losing business because of his libelous actions. What are they teaching you in law school, anyway?
And you agreed and disagreed with me on the same point in consecutive sentences.
No he couldn't... oh, but yes he could. What?
I just said he could be sued, I didn't say he'd lose the lawsuit.
but nice people sw****w
hehehehehehe
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
becos anyone can be sued for anything. my point was he has nothing to worry about. becos there is no way his posting here or what he tells his friends would ever survive in a defamation suit brought by kroger. i just got out of a class covering this very subject about 4 hours ago. kroger is a public entity and as such has an uphill battle on ANY defamation. he has nothing to fear by going around posting messages here, writing blogs, or blabbing to everyone he knows that kroger screwed him becos there is no malice involved and it's an opinion. unless he invented a story and a bunch of facts that they can show are false and published somewhere that is not the internet (like he set up a public interest piece with the local news network), he is perfectly fine.
i assume you are an attorney?