Posted on 04/05/2012 12:51:05 PM PDT by SmithL
| Judge Linda R. Reade was appointed as a Judge for the United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa, by President George W. Bush. Her commission was signed by the President on November 26, 2002. She became the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Iowa on January 1, 2007. Judge Reade was born in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. She graduated with Honors and Order of the Coif from Drake University Law School, Des Moines, Iowa in 1980. She received a master’s degree in Higher Education Administration from Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, in 1973; and an undergraduate degree in biology from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1970. From 1980 to 1986, Judge Reade was in the private practice of law handling civil and criminal matters in state and federal courts. In 1986, Judge Reade began serving as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. She served as an Assistant United States Attorney from 1986 - 1993, and as Chief of the Criminal Division of that office from 1990 to 1993. In 1993, Judge Reade was appointed a judge of the Iowa District Court, a court of general jurisdiction. She served in that court until appointed to the federal bench. |
Agree. Then again what the heck and why would they not suspect something like this is a likely result of being in this situation. Hard to work around the idiot factor.
Also looks like nobama’s agencies are having numerous slap-downs by the Fed Courts. Which is a damn good thing and about high time.
While I formly reject such behavior by anyone (re: sexual harrassment etc), it is good to see that “due process” menas the same for both plaintiff and respondent. It is called the rule of law.
Maybe there is hope for the US after all, one case and one judge at a time.
Rogue EPA, EEOC, TSA, DOJ, DOT, ATFE agencies/officers etc need to be aware that there are consequences to violations of due process....
Don’t Tread on Me!
HA-Ha,
Take that Obama-Pelois’s Lilly-Ledbetter (Lilly Bed-Wetter) ‘sue for 50 year old accusions’ Act!
So, an average EEOC complaint results in $4,500 per claim. No need to investigate, no need for evidence - apparently there is no 'time' to do that. Just give each and every complaintant $4,500.
Golly, I sure don't see any way someone could abuse THAT system at all ... < /s>
“Just give each and every complaintant $4,500.”
Why would anyone in this field hire a female? Are there not enough males? This is just one potential risk any employer takes when hiring a female; the undue burden placed on companies (Family Leave Act, for example) make it simply a bad decision. Of course, more mature women can offer a lot without some of those risks.
This is the minimum bar for coming before the court in the first place! You have to show the court that you have exhausted all other remedies, or the court will just tell you to go pound sand. That the EEOC legal team would try to take this case to court WITHOUT having first exhausted all other remedies really tells a powerful tale of their own reprehensible arrogance.
We are an agency with limited resources already,
Yeah and the companies you bully have even fewer resources. Which is what you count on.
The stories sound fabricated on the surface...beaten? raped? and No POLICE reports in this victims always right culture?
>>If Sexual Harassment is as common as they say, obtaining some actual EVIDENCE should be really easy.
Especially so since cell phones with a voice recorder function are pretty ubiquitous these days. I use mine all the time.
Class action lawsuits have become nothing but bullying for dollars.
This ruling is a good thing.
Those women who were mistreated can still sue individually
That would leave out millions and millions for the lawyers.
Exactly. These were criminal acts, but I guess crime victims don't get enough "remedy"
It truely depends on the women. I’ve seen some good women drivers, most hauling material but some hauling water. I’m talking about the Bakken field and the drivers that are on it.
The tiniest women I ever saw piled out of a “Pete” conventional to ask me if the truck stop we were at had a shower. She was a blond girl with a good figure. On the foot peddals of the truck there were blocks of wood wired to them so she could apply the brakes and clutch when needed.
She was like 5 foot nothing and beautiful
I’m not questioning their ability; they are just a lawsuit waiting to happen. Too often I’ve seen someone’s race and/or gender used by Human Resources as a reason not to act (and they’d be frank about it); why would anyone put themselves in this position deliberately?
You make a very legitimate point. What motivation is there for an employer to hire a woman? She can, at any time, decide to become a mother, take FMLA leave for 6 months - and by law, is required to return to the SAME job she had, at the same rate. She may opt to quit the workforce to raise kids and be a stay-at-home mother; then if and when she returns, she will demand pay commiserate with workers who remained at work during those years. The more Gov't "helps" women, the more incentive employers have to simply hire men for the same job.
Those women who were mistreated can still sue individuallyI'm not sure about that. I don't think the company can be sued again for the same claims. Of course, if the company culture encourages such misbehavior, I'm certain there will be more claims coming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.