Replies

So you think the fact a single trial judge disagrees with me makes me wrong? How familiar are you with the Florida legal system? Because I am part of Florida's appellate judicial system, and I still think the suit is ridiculous. And I don't recommend basing legal decisions on newspaper articles. Newspapers don't report the facts of lawsuits any more accurately than they report anything else.

They tricked her, and her co workers. They said the prize for most beer sales was a Toyota (toy yoda) car. A toy yoda is NOT a "car". She worked under intentional false pretenses. When she won, they duped her. Hope she wins.

If the boss tells you, you'll get a 8 dollar raise if you break a sales record, and then give you 8 doll hairs, are you going to laugh? Didn't think so.

So you think the fact a single trial judge disagrees with me makes me wrong? How familiar are you with the Florida legal system? Because I am part of Florida's appellate judicial system, and I still think the suit is ridiculous. And I don't recommend basing legal decisions on newspaper articles. Newspapers don't report the facts of lawsuits any more accurately than they report anything else.

Based only on what the article states (you are correct about papers not accurately reporting court hearings), I would have dismissed the case only because if the contract requires arbitration, the parties must first arbitrate their dispute. A possible caveat is the fact that this was a contest and may not be arbitrable unless the arbitration clause has the standard "arising out of or related to" language in it, which you must know based on your position is the broadest of all contract language.

If the contract does indeed state "mediation or arbitration" (language that would surprise me a great deal because mediation prior to a lawsuit would favor the employee). The real key as to whether she must first arbitrate the dispute is whether or not there is a written arbitration clause in a contract or whether it is just part of an employees manual given to her after she signed a contract. If there is no valid contract, she can skip arbitration/mediation if she wants. As for whether she has a cause of action against Hooters, it is clear that she does. There appears to have definitely been at least an implied contract, which means there is a question of fact involved. Where there are questions of fact and a valid claim, the case must go to a jury if one is requested. Quite frankly, if I were the judge on this case, she would win on a motion for summary judgment if one were requested. Even though I think she has a slam dunk case on summary judgment, her attorneys will want this to go for a trial in order to maximize the award. A curious question. Does Florida have a "tort of outrage" as a cause of action in its legal system?

So you think the fact a single trial judge disagrees with me makes me wrong? How familiar are you with the Florida legal system?

Well, I'm a lawyer, but I don't practice in Florida. From what I've seen of the "Florida legal system" in the aftermath of the Bush-Gore election debacle, I'd have to say that I don't think too much of it.

So I suppose just about anything could happen in this case.

And, yes, I'm well aware of the dangers inherent in making judgments about a legal case based solely on newspaper articles. That's why I qualified my statement the way I did.

Why don't we wait and see what happens if and when this case gets to a jury?

In the competition, the name of the top-selling waitress from each Hooters restaurant in the area was entered into a prize draw and Ms Berry was picked as the winner.

Berry said Blair knowingly misled them through the course of the contest by telling the employees he didn't know what kind of Toyota it would be -- whether a car, truck or van. The suit contends that he also told them the winner would be responsible for the tax on the new automobile.

Because of those statements, the lawsuit says, Berry "dedicated extra time and effort to sell beer." .... West said Blair's statements about the type of Toyota and tax requirements would go a long way to defeating a defense that Berry misunderstood Blair. ..... "They were legitimately led to believe that this was the reward of a car, not a Star Wars doll," he said.

Whats the problem? Slam dunk case!