She wants her $$$ back! College for learning, not getting a job. Wait, is that right? I thought it was.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/College-Grad-Cant-Find-Job-Wants--Back-52304162.html (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/College-Grad-Cant-Find-Job-Wants--Back-52304162.html)
she should have went to law school [laugh]
Yet another frivolous lawsuit...
She might have a point about suing the school. They were at fault for graduating such a dumb ass :P
Quote from: howie on August 03, 2009, 08:40:42 AM
She might have a point about suing the school. They were at fault for graduating such a dumb ass :P
[laugh] [laugh]
so does this meant hat if i get into an accident i can sue my driver's ed teacher?
Do I have a chance if I have a job but it sux [laugh]
mitt
I got a job and it was partly due to my school hosting a career fair. However, I don't really like the job. I think I'll sue the school for pain and suffering because my job gives me headaches.
I love this country.
Yet another example of someone looking to blame other people for their own problems. Sadly college isn't a magic cure-all. make the beast with two backs, in my field, a lot of places are starting to want master's degrees just for entry level jobs. It's starting to suck real bad. BS and BA degrees are too common now that school is so accessible and employers are raising the bar on their requirements to match. I'm pretty sure that the work isn't getting harder but I have my suspicions that the quality of the BS and BA degrees are going down which justifies a bit of the employer's requirements of employees. I don't know many schools that give guarantees on employment either so she's just wasting more money on law fees for a case she SHOULD lose.
It's also negative publicity for her-would you hire someone so sue happy?
you also have to look at it from the other side.
So many schools put such an importance on their ability to provide the education for you to obtain better quality of life through a better paying job.
Maybe it is time schools are held accountable for the BS (I made a funny) they are selling just to make money.
Quote from: Raux on August 03, 2009, 02:05:11 PM
you also have to look at it from the other side.
So many schools put such an importance on their ability to provide the education for you to obtain better quality of life through a better paying job.
Maybe it is time schools are held accountable for the BS (I made a funny) they are selling just to make money.
Um OK
who can I sue?
Quote from: Vindingo on August 03, 2009, 02:45:09 PM
The paint lady!
no shit.... there has to be something bad in the dust I'm having to breath because of her.
i think i am going to sue the DMF for not posting this sooner.
Quote from: Triple J on August 03, 2009, 02:15:52 PM
Um OK
ok i should clarify... diploma mills... many schools are seeing the cash flow ability of being able to provide a piece of paper that is supposed to make you rich.
Quote from: Raux on August 03, 2009, 03:00:26 PM
ok i should clarify... diploma mills... many schools are seeing the cash flow ability of being able to provide a piece of paper that is supposed to make you rich.
I can kind of see where you're going with this. Schools like Devry (technical schools) have commercials all the time with people saying "My family was living paycheck to paycheck and then I went to Devry. Now I have a great job and we can afford all the nice things in life. Blah blah blah." They make it seem like it's supposed to be a magic wand that solves everything. But seriously, where's the accountability? You should know that there's no such thing as a magic solve all just because a commercial says it is. Yes, going to college gives you a better CHANCE at getting a good job. But it's not guaranteed. And if everyone is going to college to get a degree, everyone is getting that better chance. So in the end, your odds of getting a job haven't improved one bit. [laugh]
A number of schools make inflated claims to be able to place large percentage of their student body in order to increase attendance. While a lawsuit in this case is probably frivolous, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that an educational institution could face some culpability for over-inflated claims.
What school are we talking about here? Education can lead to better opritunities, but the reality is, more people go to college and come out doing the same crap they would of done without a college degree 50 years ago.
I think technical schools can advertise the job placement idea much better than a college can. Devry and such can give you the training and qualification to do something technical that no one else can do. Those type of schools are focused on getting you into the workforce.
College is just a place to get educated, unless you are trying to be an Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer or Businessy stuff.
Quote from: He Man on August 03, 2009, 04:36:03 PM
What school are we talking about here?
[/snip]
This school. Never heard of it before. http://www.monroecollege.edu/prospective_students (http://www.monroecollege.edu/prospective_students)
I know 1 person who transfered from there to my school ( City College of New York/ City University of New York). They do look like they hired an advertising agency to make hteir website though.
You can tell when a school is serious about education when their website never make the beast with two backsing works.
Quote from: He Man on August 03, 2009, 04:52:04 PM
You can tell when a school is serious about education when their website never make the beast with two backsing works.
[laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
Quote from: superjohn on August 03, 2009, 04:25:31 PM
A number of schools make inflated claims to be able to place large percentage of their student body in order to increase attendance. While a lawsuit in this case is probably frivolous, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that an educational institution could face some culpability for over-inflated claims.
That's what I was thinking - a truth in advertising claim. Out of high school, I wanted to go to the Pittsburgh Institute of Aeronautics. That year, airlines were laying off mechanics and techs hand over fist. Their brochures touted their job placement abilities, but this buyer of their product backed off BECAUSE THE NEWSPAPER MATTERS MORE THAN THE SALES PITCH!
People are make the beast with two backsing stupid. I surrender.
Quote from: NAKID on August 03, 2009, 07:01:24 AM
Yet another frivolous lawsuit...
I thought the same thing about McDonald's being sued for the coffee being hot, uh, and for the pickle being hot, now both of those idiots are millionaires and I am at work at midnight. So who is the idiot?
Quote from: psycledelic on August 03, 2009, 07:57:46 PM
I thought the same thing about McDonald's being sued for the coffee being hot, uh, and for the pickle being hot, now both of those idiots are millionaires and I am at work at midnight. So who is the idiot?
People always ring up the McDonalds case though it wasn't actually frivolous.
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.
[edit] Attempts to settle
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in a New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of “gross negligence†for selling coffee that was “unreasonably dangerous†and “defectively manufactured.†McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000.[5] Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.[5]
[edit] Evidence presented to the jury
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180â€"190 °F (82â€"88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false.[12]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[5] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[13]
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[5] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[14] The trial lasted from August 8â€"17, 1994, and the twelve-person jury reached their verdict before Judge Robert H. Scott on August 18.[15]
[edit] Verdict and settlement
Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[5] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[16] Liebeck died on August 4, 2004, at the age of 91.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants)
90 seconds in a parked car?
i'd be out and have my pants off in 10.
i still think it is stupid. who holds coffee between their knees while taking off the lid? what do you think is going to happen when you are squeezing a foam cup and then remove the lid?
we coddle the stupid......no, we reward stupidity! spill hot coffee on yourself like a dumbass, get burnt like a dumbass.
I still think that was a stupid case too. Yes, the coffee was "unreasonably" hot but, duh, it's coffee! It's supposed to be hot!
i bought my girlfriend a set of j.a. henckles knives and they are too sharp! if she cuts herself i am going to sue. wtf!
Quote from: bobspapa on August 03, 2009, 02:46:53 PM
no shit.... there has to be something bad in the dust I'm having to breath because of her.
Maybe you should sue California. I'm gonna sue Texas because its so damn hot. Then I'm gonna sue all my customers for bringing me their cars hot having to work on em right away.
i'm going to sue the courts for allowing stupid lawsuits.
Weird Al Yankovic - I'll Sue Ya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfO9JUNXN7U#noexternalembed-lq-lq2-hq-vhq)