$225 Mil. Lawsuit Against NASCAR
 

Although she seems to have waited a long time to file the suit, I have been reading about it on other racing sites and the answers from NASCAR seem to be inconsistent. Also I have noticed that starting about 3 weeks ago Larry Mc Renolds was talking it up about how NASCAR needed to get more women in as drivers, pit people, or anything as other racing had them and they were having success there. This link is from the NASCAR site and of course has their slant to it.

http://www.nascar.com/2008/news/head...uit/index.html

Ron :confused:

The bad thing is it is just going to turn into a he said she said court battle. Whoever is seen as the most professional will likely win. She is obviously emotionally driven and that will come out making her seem less professional. Either way it will be an uphill battle even if she is completely right.

Joe,

I have to agree as the NASCAR group will stick together and the only people who will gain out of this now are the lawyers unless NASCAR will settle without a trial to avoid the bad publicity. I just don't see why she waited so long to file the suit. That makes it look almost as if someone else suggested she do it.

Ron :confused:

I am sure someone else did. By her own admission, she started recording the different incidents after her sisters witnessed something and told her to do it. After she got fired, I am sure someone kept telling her she needs to sue them, so she finally got a lawyer after she convinced herself that it was right. I would be the truth (as usual) falls somewhere in the middle. There were probably comments that bothered her, but she downplayed it to the guys so she wouldn't seem like a troublemaker. As far as complaints to supervisors, likely they were downplayed and came across as it was annoying to her.

Just my uniformed opinion.

NASCAR-another place women have no business being.

I remember when the pit crew members were volunteers, except for expenses and, if any crew members had a reason to complain, it was the guys on the 'Viagra' team!. Can you imagine the constant harassment they suffered. It's be interesting to see what happens.

Bill, if it's a joke then it is really funny. If you are serious, you are an a$$. By the way, if you were making a joke, you should have included one of these. :LOL: or one of these. :p

Wayne

:eek:

Wayne,

Bill hardly ever uses a smiley . And from all that I see on the other sites associated with NASCAR, I am starting to wonder just how much of this is exaggerated and how much is actual fact.

What makes me a little cautious about this is why she waited a year to do anything and some of the posts that I have read on a sports site that I belong to. Of course there are some differences in each sides version, so who is really telling the truth? :confused:

Ron :p

Absolutely!!

At first I kind of thought that a girl on the pit crew would be a good idea. You know, cleaning the driver's side of the windshield while wearing a wet T-shirt. Wearing a thong for the rest of us to view while she is stretching out across the hood.
With more thought I'm not too sure about it. It could be that the car's are spending most of their time in the pits.
I could live with that though.

:D

Sorry Fred, that won't fly. They just rip a tear off now to clean the windshield. Now if you were to send BB to work with them for a race or two I bet the so called harassment would stop. :LOL:

Ron :p

Well I think it is about time for rule change then !

As far as BB goes,she would be the one doing the sexual harassment.:rolleyes:

Before one is allowed to file in federal court under federal discrimination law, one must first file an administrative charge against the employer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "EEOC"), which is the federal agency empowered to enforce anti-discrimination laws grouped together under Title VII of the United States Code (simply because Title VI and VIII are already filled up with other bullsh!t). It is a prequisite, meaning that if one files a federal lawsuit without having filed the charge first, the suit will be subject to a motion to dismiss under Section 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.

Sometimes aggrieved employees seek out counsel first, and sometimes they go straight to the EEOC (the phone number is included on the Discrimination poster on every employer bulletin board in the country, so it's not like it's hard to find). Presuming that the plaintiff approached counsel within weeks of losing her job, said counsel would have embarked on at least a minimal investigation to determine the value of case and gather sufficient evidence to provide the EEOC if called upon. In some instances, a plaintiff's attorney might request the EEOC dismiss the charge immediately and provide the plaintiff with what is descriptively referred to as a Right to Sue Letter, which is what would be attached to a subsequent federal lawsuit to evidence the fact that yes, indeedy do, the adiminsitrative charge was filed as required.

Sometimes the EEOC, asspecially when they think it might be fun to bring the case themselves, won't issue a Right to Sue Letter, and will instead file the suit themselves, with or without the plaintiff's attorney joining in. Also, sometimes the EEOC will attempt to mediate the dispute between the parties before it. Either of these prospects can take a few months of federal employees standing around and considering their own particular intestinal evacuation orifices before they actually do something.

In other words, there are various procedural reasons why it would take several months to file such an action and, for those who are experienced in such things, a mere 7-8 months following the termination of the employment relationship is a rather short time period when one considers that an aggrieved employee has only ninety (90) days after a Right to Sue Letter is issued by the EEOC, thereby making it patently obvious that the EEOC administrative procedures before the issuance of the letter were a bit involved (albeit not overly so).

Jamo,

Thanks for the explanation. Never having been involved in any lawsuit, I had no idea of what all had to be gone through. I just thought that the time seemed a long time to wait, but now depending on how it was gone about it seems that it actually wasn't all that long. I can understand that in a lawsuit like this where the lines can be blurred as far as one person interpreting what is harassment and another not considering it so, it could take time to figure that out.

Ron :)

Thanks Jamo, I did not know that.

Sounds to me like someone wants to get their 401K funded for free.

Come on, they cited a previous employee that was released for using abusive language toward a co-worker. Hell, I would have fired them as well. How is that even remotely related to alleged sexual harassment?

Sorry, put me on the jury and I will award to the defence and make the plaintiffs pay restitution to the defendants for defamation of character.

An old saying comes to mind:
If you can't stand the heat, stay the hell out of the kitchen!

I sort of wondered about that too, Steve. She was cited for using "Street Language" in the past. Kind of makes me think she wanted to be able to use certain terms and or comments, but get mad when others do the same because they are not the same race. That is one argument that I never have gotten behind and never will.

Yea, I sorta think what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you ask for trouble you will most certainly get it. Sounds like she asked for and received exactly what she wanted. Then after she got FIRED for poor performance she has to cry wolf.

Give me a break, I would give her a quarter and tell her to call someone who gives a $hit!

I think Jamo just made that up. Like he's a lawyer or something. :rolleyes:

Yup...ya got me. Just pulled it out of my ass.