Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: j.havenfarm
The gravamen of the lawsuit is likely detrimental reliance rather than fraud. Disney has recognized liability in concept.

Per the article: ". . . compensation packages offered to affected employees by the company were inadequate, the lawsuit alleges." Like other large corporations, Disney fears being nibbled to death by lawsuits and prefers as a matter of strategy to pay lawyers but as little in compensation as possible and to make what it does pay hard to get.

Disney's failure to expand its tech workforce in the Orlando area may prove to be a serious error. Florida in general -- and the Orlando area in particular -- are burgeoning with tech talent. Astonishingly, due to the massive and top-rated University of Central Florida, the sleepy small city of my youth is now ranked as the top hub in the world for modeling and simulation.

Moreover, the upscale Lake Nona development southeast of Orlando has an attractive mix of residences, businesses, transportation, shopping and leisure, public amenities, and medical care. That Disney bailed on its plans there suggests it is downsizing not just on immediate costs but on future growth as well.

Walt Disney bet his company more than once based on his imagination and the talent of his employees. Nowadays though, the Mouse is a miserly cheapskate with a taste for the woke and weird. Worse, it may see its future wither as rivals and upstarts prosper with the technical talent that it failed to hire for its now abandoned Orlando tech operation. Accountants can count costs and revenue, but they are notoriously unable to calculate lost opportunities.

25 posted on 06/20/2024 5:41:37 PM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Rockingham

I’m really going to remain adamant on this as I was admitted to the state Bar of CA more than 30 years ago: detrimental reliance is an element of the cause of action for fraud in CA. That false representations were knowingly made at the outset is also an element, and the plaintiffs can’t prove it here. You must prove all of the elements or you’re SOL

And settlement amenability and offers are 100% inadmissible to prove liability on the public policy of encouraging parties to settle their disputes. Settlement discussion are also completely inadmissible

I’m telling you, Disney has no liability under CA law


29 posted on 06/20/2024 9:22:46 PM PDT by j.havenfarm (23 years on Free Republic, 12/10/23! More than 8,000 replies and still not shutting up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson