• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

AG Roy Cooper Refuses to Defend State in HB2

Probably. as far as they just need rational basis efficiency of the courts counts I would think.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
He still has to appear for it because a lawsuit has been formally filed against the state so someone has to file an Answer, which I think is what you all are not understanding. The AG is the State's attorney by statute and must make that appearance. Otherwise, the result is that the State takes a default judgment, which would be completely ridiculous (i.e. if the lawsuit asked for $10 billion in damages and the AG didn't appear to file an Answer, then the plaintiff would win the $10 billion from the state simply because no Answer was filed). So somebody needs to appear and Answer for the State in any situation; if he personally won't do it then he needs to resign so that somebody else can in the AG's capacity as dictated by the statute.
Click to expand...

At the risk of getting dragged into this quagmire - I think this response is flawed. In this hypothetical, the AG could respond and concede the unconstitutionality of the statute but contest the remedy being sought. As you know as a "real" litigator, sometimes in the real world litigants concede their opponents allegations in whole or in part, but still contest the damages sought (or in the criminal context, plead guilty but put on evidence of mitigating factors in the sentencing phase). I have not read the HB2 complaint, but I imagine it simply asks for the remedy of the statute being declared unconstitutional and unenforceable. If the complaint asks for some outlandish damage award, then your added facts might be relevant to the discussion at hand. Otherwise I think what you are doing with this response is adding facts to the hypothetical in order to bolster your argument.
 
Just seems to run counter to the spirit of the justice system...but this is why I have a science degree and not a law one.
 
Deadbolt said:
Does that provision have a leg to stand on constitutionally?
Click to expand...

Sure it does. In fact, I think the most likely outcome here is that that the "bathroom" portion of HB2 - AKA, the smokescreen - gets overruled based on Romer v. Evans but the rest of statute stands. The portions of the statute prohibiting cities from implementing their own minimum wage and discrimination laws and deleting the state court discrimination remedy will carry on.
 
Deadbolt said:
Just seems to run counter to the spirit of the justice system...but this is why I have a science degree and not a law one.
Click to expand...

Broadly speaking, states are free to set their own laws about what claims can and cannot be pursued in their own justice systems. For example, North Carolina is one of the few states that still has the "alienation of affection" claim where a plaintiff can sue a guy who sleeps with his wife. People who suffer employment discrimination can still sue in the Federal courts but as many have noted, that remedy is not nearly as effective as the state court process that has been deleted. I'm not a litigator so don't have detailed knowledge, but I think there are probably plenty of other claims that can be brought in Federal court, because they're based solely on Federal statutes, but not in state courts.
 
As 923 says, there are numerous types of claims that can only be brought in Federal court, but they are usually claims based on Federal law or diversity jurisdiction. Federal Court is a lot more efficient than NC State courts, as all pleadings are done electronically, rulings are issued faster, and the judges are usually much more knowledgeable and better. Employment discrimination is a very strange type of claim to mix into federal court, as many of the claims are just straight garbage. I think it will likely bog down the Federal system in general, which isn't a good idea. It would make a legitimate claim likely to be handled better in the long run, but it does raise the economic barrier for filing a claim in the short term because the lawyers familiar with the Federal system are not usually going to be the ambulance chasers that would handle a plaintiffs discrimination suit, so they are going to charge more.
If it stays, I think you'll get a subset of cheap plaintiffs discrimination attorneys who begin to know the system pretty well, much like bankruptcy debtor attorneys, so I don't think the difference for someone filing the claim will be noticeable. I think the difference will be on the system side, where the Federal court will have an influx of crappy cases that slow down other cases. I definitely would not support this change.

ETA: Another thing it will do is drive up the defense costs for employers for the cases that are filed, because Motions have to be briefed. Maybe they think that a reduction in the number of claims outweighs a per claim cost increase, I don't know. Or maybe they just didn't think it through, which is probably more likely.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I said it earlier, but there are a ton of employment discrimination cases in Massachusetts in the state court system (and I imagine NC is the same way) - if these all went to federal court it would be a disaster for efficiency.
 
That's actually the perfect example of why HB2 isn't necessary. It's a criminal act for anyone - male or female - to take photos of someone changing in a locker room or restroom. This person was charged. The fact that the person is transgender is meaningless to the fact a crime occurred. Thanks, Fox News!
 
Say Hey Deac said:
That's actually the perfect example of why the CLT Ordinance isn't necessary. It's a criminal act for anyone - male or female - to assault someone in a locker room or restroom. This person was charged. The fact that the person is transgender is meaningless to the fact a crime occurred. Thanks, look-at-us PC libs!
Click to expand...

Fixed for the initial proximate cause of this entire shitshow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top