Jokes About Not Eating Pork Can be Costly
.jpg)
Every so often someone will claim that discrimination is gone or mostly gone. Yet, evidence of bias pops up everywhere. In a recent trial in a patent infringement case in Marshall, Texas, a witness from Israel was testifying. The defense lawyer was cross examining the Israeli witness. Asking about the witness' lunch meeting at Bodacious Barbacue, the defense lawyer asked what he ate. "I bet not pork," he offered. Apparently, the defense lawyer thought this comment was humorous.
The lawyer later apologized for the remark to the jury.
The jury eventually found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $3.7 million against Cisco Systems. But, because of the remark by the defense lawyer, the federal magistrate who heard the case offered to consider a motion for new trial. See report. That is, after he dismissed the jury, he told the lawyers he would was troubled by the remark, no matter how innocent the lawyers intentions may have been. He said he would consider a motion for new trial if the plaintiff wished to file one. The verdict was large, but the plaintiff had sought $53 million. Commill USA v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Et Al.
Most people, lawyers especially, are on their best behavior in court. If this is the defense lawyer's best behavior, one must wonder what he will utter in more casual settings. As I tell my managers and employers, ethnic jokes are the path to lawsuits and trouble. The only "safe" joke these days is a good ole fashioned Aggie joke.....
Not even the Aggie joke is "safe" Thomas. I recall being in a car pool as a summer intern. One of the other members, the driver, was a graduate of Texas A&M. Another member, upon learning that I was a student at Texas A&M remarked "Did you hear the Aggie joke..." where upon the driver slammed on the brakes and said "This car won't move an INCH as long as aggie jokes are being told so long as I drive". That was embarrasing enough but we were on IH 45 in Houston at rush hour, further compounding the awkwardness of the situation. I guess we have come to the point where bias is evident in everything if you want to find it.
George brings up a good point. Title VII and the other discrimination statutes do not address civility in the workplace. Federal judges will be the first to tell you they do not deal with general politeness at work. The civil rights statutes only deal with race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, gender and a couple of other classifications. So, sorry, but discrimination based on college affiliation is not protected. It might offend some folks, but discrimination based on what college you attended is not protected.
I think that is lame. It seems like a tempest in a teapot for somebody to take offense at a stupid remark, for which the lawyer apologized. And now it's costing taxpayers more money, too.