Teaching Evolution to Creationists; Is it Relevant to Business Law?

I am sharing today a link to an enlightening essay by James J. Krupa entitled Defending Darwin.  Krupa's subtitle gives you the gist of what to expect: "I teach human evolution at the University of Kentucky.  There are some students I will never reach."

In reading the essay I immediately made a connection between Krupa's experience with students whose religious beliefs cause them to reject the science of evolution out of hand, and my own experience with students whose political ideology causes them to dismiss, out of hand, the logic that disproves the fallacy of frivolous lawsuit abuse.

There are students that are convinced that our legal system is plagued with tens of thousands of meritless lawsuits that have been brought against major corporations by unscrupulous lawyers secure in the knowledge that the corporation would rather settle the case immediately for hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not $1M or more, rather than suffer the cost of defense or the "embarrassment" of the lawsuit.

I recently posited for my students, the facts of two cases brought against TV networks.  One was based on the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. After being accused of inappropriate solicitation of a female producer O'Reilly vociferously denied any such conduct and called the lawsuit "extortion."  The plaintiff's lawyer produced taped recordings of O'Reilly's lewd, suggestive and solicitous phone messages.

The other case was the "Fear Factor Rat Eating Episode" law suit.  A viewer of this episode of NBC's "Fear Factor" show, suddenly feeling nauseous and dizzy suffered injuries by running into a door jam during a desperate attempt to leave the room where the TV was located.

At this point, I asked the students in which of the two cases they would consider representing the plaintiff.  Overwhelmingly, students chose case #1 and rejected case #2.  However, there were a staunch few students who insisted that case #2 was just as likely to result in a quick and extremely lucrative settlement as case #1.

We then discussed the actual outcome of the cases.  #1 settled within a few weeks for an undetermined sum in the millions of dollars.  Case #2 was summarily dismissed on motion to the court.

For the benefit of the students convinced of the a ubiquity of quick, lucrative settlements of meritless cases,  I asked the following question;  What would happen to a corporation that developed a reputation of paying large sums of money in settlement of meritless lawsuits?  The logic was obvious as was the response from most of the students.

Still, much like Krupa's students who followed up with him to confirm what their religion tells them is true, I heard from a handful of students who were convinced, without evidence, that major corporations regularly pay out millions of dollars in settlement of meritless lawsuits. Likewise, lawyers regularly pursue these meritless lawsuits because they are a lucrative source of revenue for them.

It is possible that we fail to communicate over the definition of the term "meritless."  For instance, perhaps these students consider the McDonald's coffee case as meritless, while I consider it a bona fide claim.  However, should we be disagreeing over the Rat Eating Episode lawsuit?

As Krupa states with regard to a former student who came to see him years later, "Now a doctor, he explained to me that, at the time, he was so upset with my seminar that he attended a number of creationists’ public lectures for evidence I was wrong. He said he found himself embarrassed by how badly these individuals perverted Christian teachings, as well as known facts, to make their argument. He wanted me to know that he came to understand he could be a Christian and accept evolution. Then he did something that resonates with any teacher: He thanked me for opening his eyes, turning his world upside down, and blurring the line between black and white."

Like religious beliefs, political ideology can interfere with a student's ability to embrace the evidence and logic of the lesson. As it is possible to be a Christian and accept evolution, it is possible to maintain a political ideology and understand the legal system as it actually functions. You just have to be open to understanding both.

Click here to read a related story about what would appear to be unnecessary tensions between academia and evangelicalism.

Related posts at LSCB: Quick Settlement: When and Why?
Frivolous Lawsuits Are Good For America
Spotlight on Frivolous Lawsuits

More "Frivolous Lawsuit" Mythbusting

See related post, here.

Guest Blogger,Henry Lowenstein: Yes, We Have No Bananas!

Appellate Court Goes Bananas!:   Banana Lady "Slips" In Credit Union Lawsuit

Our students in the Legal Environment of Business courses often ask us if there is any control to what appears to be frivolous, abusive litigation against individuals and firms, often merely to simply try and pressure money settlements to avoid the expensive legal fees involved in litigation.  Every now and then, a litigant crosses the line such that a court rises to protect the integrity of the judicial process and halt for that moment abuses of the system.   Such was the case this week from the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of Conrad (aka “Banana Lady’) v. AM Community Credit Union (Case No. 13-2899, April 14, 2014.   Click here for the link to the story as reported by the Chicago Sun-News with link to the opinion by the Chief Judge, Richard Posner.

The “Banana Lady” represents an extreme example of abuse of the judicial system that not only was costly to defendants but in clogging the courts and impeding the effectiveness of the judicial system.  It also points out the growing intolerance of Federal courts to questionable if not de minimus attempts to improperly use intellectual property law (in this case copyrights) as a tool to bully questionable settlement payments rather than protect legitimate intellectual property values.  This case can be used in classes to emphasize both points and the costs to business of succumbing to settlements that encourage simply more litigation.

In the case of the “Banana Lady,” the Court of Appeals signals its intolerance and opinion (complete with pictures) that such suits will receive from the court the old song, Yes, We Have No Bananas and intolerance for like frivolous and vexatious lawsuit behavior in the future.  Those who try in the future will find Federal judges….well… .going bananas!  

I hope you enjoy this story and the serious lesson it leaves other than a judicial banana peel on the judicial floor.

Editor's Note: I have previously expressed the opinion that "frivolous lawsuits" typically share 3 common characteristics: 1) They are filed without the aid of counsel, 2) there is likely some level of mental illness exhibited by the Plaintiff, and 3) they are flushed out of the system without causing millions of dollars in taxpayer and/or defense expenses.

With respect to the "Banana Lady" case: 

1. From Judge Posner's decision:  "Proceeding pro se, Conrad has sued several credit unions in this case."

2. From the Chicago Sun-News Article: Banana Lady . . . has a history of making wild claims in her court filings, including comparing her legal opponents to the Unabomber and alleging that they hung out at the Kennedy Compound in Hyannis Port, Mass.

3. From Judge Posner's decision:  The district judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.

Although the case did go on appeal to the Court of Appeals, it still was disposed of in a reasonably expeditious fashion without closing the courthouse doors to people who believe they have legitimate grievances. Frivolous lawsuits do have the effect of ameliorating what might otherwise become dangerous expressions of rage and frustration. Given the plaintiff's history in this case, Judge Posner's orders are absolutely justified.

Banana Boat Song:

Spotlight on Frivolous Lawsuits

I have previously expressed the opinion in this blog that frivolous lawsuits are good for America. Others may have different opinions. In recognizing that frivolous lawsuits exist, I am by no means buying into the industry-fueled tort reform propaganda that the nation is somehow awash with frivolous lawsuits that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. But, I am recognizing reality.  These lawsuits exist.  They are usually filed pro se.  They are usually filed by people with apparent mental illness. They are summarily dismissed from the court system at the earliest possible review by a judge. Yet, the media reports on these lawsuits as if they were representative of the state of the civil justice system and attract the attention of judicial resources in the same degree as legitimate claims. Certainly the media can claim to be "just reporting the facts." But misrepresentation by omission is just as harmful to legal legitimacy as intentional falsehoods. The experience of the reporting on the McDonald's Coffee Case should have taught us something as a society. It takes an educated and  knowledgeable reader to draw the proper conclusions from the facts reported.

UConn is promoting "Business Literacy" as a point of emphasis in our courses.  I think one of the principal contributions that a Legal Environment course can make toward that end is to produce students who can read through sensational reporting of civil justice issues to discover the real impact of what is reported.

See similar posts, here and here.

So, that brings us to the frivolous lawsuit du jour.  The Oregonian reports:

A 26-year-old Portland pimp has filed a $100 million lawsuit against Nike, claiming the shoe manufacturer is partially responsible for a brutal beating that helped net him a 100-year prison sentence.

Sirgiorgiro Clardy claims Nike should have placed a label in his Jordan shoes warning consumers that they could be used as a dangerous weapon. He was wearing a pair when he repeatedly stomped the face of a john who was trying to leave a Portland hotel without paying Clardy's prostitute in June 2012.

Pro Se?

In his three-page complaint handwritten from the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in Pendleton, Clardy claims that Nike, Chairman Phil Knight and other executives failed to warn consumers that the shoes could be used as a weapon to cause serious injury or death.

Mental Illness?

A psychologist declared him an anti-social psychopath who was 100 percent likely to commit violent crimes again. And Clardy disagreed so loudly -- making such a scene -- that he was removed from the courtroom.

Costing taxpayers millions of dollars?

In the coming days, the suit will be served to Nike, which will then have an opportunity to respond.

In this case, all the facts are there.  But our students need to able to understand the legal and social implications of the facts.

On the other hand, the 1:30 second news report below from Bloomberg 8 fails to include the "pro se" fact or the likely mental illness. It also mis-characterizes the civil suit as a defense in his criminal case.

Perception of American Law

The video below was submitted by Konrad Lee at Utah State University. In case you missed it about 30 years ago, this scenario builds on the story, long since discredited, that a woman whose precious family pet died when she attempted to dry it off in a microwave oven prosecuted a successful lawsuit against the microwave manufacturer. I've decided to open class with this one today.

Sadly, this is an expression of how some perceive American Justice.

"Frivolous" Lawsuit Stories Exposed by Cracked.com

The website Cracked.com reports on 6 Famous "Frivolous Lawsuit" Stories That Are Total BS. Undergraduate students are very familiar with the Cracked website which provides a healthy dose of humor and sarcasm to the youger generation.  Warning! Cracked does not hesitate to express its ideas in language that you would otherwise try to avoid in class. So, I wouldn't put this up on the projector, but I might assign it on a syllabus.

A sampling of other Cracked articles of interest:
5 Awesomely Sarcastic Supreme Court Decisions
7 Bullshit Police Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)
The 5 Most Wildy Illegal Court Rulings in Movie History
7 Brilliant Movie Lawyers (Who Suck at Their Job)
6 Judges Who Went Completely Insane on The Bench

"Frivolous" Lawsuits Are Good For America

The national news media reported last week on a lawsuit filed by a kidnapper against his victims claiming that they breached an oral contract to hide him from police. (A tip of the hat to ALSB member Marsha Hass for sharing the report). Predictably, bloggers and commentators have added this example to their rhetoric of a "justice system out of control" and "costing taxpayers money" and etc.

In this post, I advocate that this story, rather than supporting the notion of an out of control civil justice system,  is best understood as an example of a legal system working exactly as it should for the greater benefit of society.