[NYDNews]Law suit claims Rockets players harassed gay man

Why those two?

 

February 22, 2013

Happy April Fools.

 

I don't think they said that because he is gay. They might have been just teasing the man. At least I hope that's what it was.

 

stupid lawluit. the basketball player should counter sue for being racially discriminated. check and mate

 

we all know lin is a christian. im pretty sure they hate gays

 

Are you serious? Sure, some denominations are not gay friendly, but I know many gay Christians here in Asheville NC, and many congregations that welcome gays. One of my high school friends from New York who later turned out to be gay (no surprise to his friends) served for a time as an Episcopalian priest (I believe after he had come out).

 

I didn't say he deserved to be called names. He clearly didn't. However this lawsuit is bull**** and I AM an attorney. The Nets and NBA both would be properly named parties.

We have way too many lawsuits in America. He has the right to sue, but a waste of time IMO. I am not even sure he has standing to bring in the Rockets... Ripe for a Summary Judgment.

 

hhaha dude i was just trolling. im christian too was just a joke

 

Is he getting bad legal advice, or is it that he doesn't want to sue the Nets because they apologized (and maybe also because they hired Collins?)? I don't know.

But aren't players taxed for each game separately based on location while they are on the roster. (In other words a Portland player only pays Oregon taxes on the games he plays at home.) Perhaps similarly, the opponents' locker room is regarded as belonging to the opponents during game day. Maybe opposing teams do bear some legal responsibility for those spaces. But I have no idea really. I'm just speculating because he sued the Rockets and not the Nets.

However, if indeed the Nets and the NBA are the more logical targets of this suit, then I think it is more likely that the events did transpire--because it suggests that he must have personal reasons for suing the Rockets instead of easier legal targets. In other words, it would suggest that it's not just about the money.

 

Caught on video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_9AIjN_Agc

 

There's always bad apples. Until we can read minds, a person shouldn't be forced to change in front of somebody who could possibly be attracted to them. If they don't have a prob with it, then all's well. But, to force somebody is BS. What if their spouse isn't okay with it? Not because it's a gay man/woman, but because it's somebody who could be attracted to them.

What if it's against your religious beliefs? I'm not a Muslim, but I wouldn't force something that's against their religion onto them. Christians deserves respect too as well.

 

Women reporters are allowed in the locker room. My assumption is that no one but the players are allowed in the showers (which are now individual), and that players probably dry off and put their underwear on there.

The issue here is harassment, not whether people have the right to be clothed in front of people who might be sexually attracted to them.

 

The Nets apologizing would be irrelevant. The point is that in the list of responsible parties in a lawsuit, you tend to sue multiple parties in the order of those *most* responsible.

The most responsible would be... Catering Co/Restaurant > Barclay Center > Nets > NBA/Rockets

And the tax status of where players' income earned is irrelevant.

Essentially he's launching a civil suit. If this was a legitimate harassment suit (hostile workplace), then this would be going through the labor board and it would be addressed through his employer. IE, the catering company and possible the Barclay Center.

In a nutshell, the responsibility for a non-hostile workplace falls upon the shoulders of your employer (the company that pays your check). When you face harassment, in order for the suit to have merit, you need to meet certain criteria....

1) That the harassment took place
2) That you informed your supervisor/employer of the harassment
3) That your employer did NOT take steps to remedy the environment and that it caused you monetary loss OR mental anguish OR resulted in retribution

To sue the Rockets makes ZERO sense (as clients of the Catering company). You would sue first the direct employer (catering company), then possibly Barclay's Center (if they were culpable), then *possibly* the NBA. The Rockets would be the LAST group you would sue and even that would be a MASSIVE stretch.

That he is suing the Rockets and NOT suing any of the more directly responsible parties says a LOT. If there was a real civil case, then there would be NO reason to NOT sue his employer, Barclay's, etc.

My guess is this is an attempt to extract leverage for an out of court settlement. This guy is betting that the Rockets would rather offer some money than be dragged through court in a frivolous lawsuit.

However, if I'm the Rockets I would tell him to stuff it, say, "See you in court" and counter-sue for defamation. Even IF the Rockets said those things, the Rockets are not responsible for the workplace of a person who is NOT an employee of the Rockets or their affiliated companies.

It's the equivalent of working at McDonalds, a customer harassing you and then suing the customer for harassment instead of suing McDonalds for allowing the customer to continue harassing you. In other words, it makes ZERO sense.

 

But isn't he suing his employer the caterer as well?

Now yes, I understand why it makes more sense to sue the NBA and the Nets instead of the Rockets. Presumably his lawyer would too. Yet the fact that he didn't sue the Nets and the NBA would suggest that he is motivated by personal reasons (not monetary), and that he is suing the party that he honestly feels is at fault, rather than suing the party that he feels he can shakedown the easiest.

Therefore, the exclusion of the Nets and the NBA makes me think that the incident more likely actually happened and that it bothered him greatly.

But of course I don't know and can't say for sure. It will be interesting what that Nets employee has to say in court.

 

Now, if the Rocket's players were being sued for kicking the sht out of a homeless man, that would be more believable.

 

Who could have possibly.... *pause* .... done such a thing?

Homo's need to lighten up. Good natured ribbing is common amongst athletes for whatever reason. Jon Barry's nose, Dikembe's voice and age, etc.

 

He is suing the catering company, however suing the Rockets has pretty close to a zero chance of winning. Normally you would only do it if you were seeking a frivolous lawsuit settlement.

Suing the Rockets directly achieves next to nothing, as you would still get the negative PR for the Rockets through his suing the catering company as lawsuits are a matter of public record and the chances of winning against the Rockets when they aren't your employer are extremely remote.

Once the evidence is submitted, then any statements regarding Rockets' players would no doubt make it into the media.

Essentially, if you thought you could *win* the case, you would sue the most responsible parties and let the PR hits play out (I want my day in court for the world to see) or wait for a settlement offer (and gag order). To take this information public and lose the case would simply destroy his credibility in the public arena.

Normally you would only see this type of lawsuit as a "nuclear" option, ie, the fulfillment of a threat if a party would not agree to a settlement.

Most likely scenario is along these lines...

Person : Your guys harassed me, and I want money to keep my mouth shut.
Rockets : Our guys say they didn't, and if they did, we're not your employer. Take it up with your bosses.
Person : If you don't settle with me, I'm going to take this public. Do you guys really want the negative press?
Rockets : You don't have a case and we don't think you're credible. We won't pay you. See you in court.

If this was *really* about principle, then they would simply sue the Catering company, refuse any settlements, and let it go to court. That way they're suing the responsible party, aren't wasting money on a low probability win, and still get their side of the story out. And the end result in terms of the PR hit to the Rockets is the same.

Like I said, this smells fishy and then some.

 

I don't think the lawsuit is the issue here. I doubt anyone in the Rockets brass is sweating it, and probably the only press its getting is local.

But people here need to not dismiss this as silly. The lawsuit is probably silly. But for all we know that could merely be a ploy to bring attention to the issue since perhaps it wasn't being addressed.

No one doing their job should be made fun of for their sexuality. If it was the guys race and he was called the n-word, people wouldn't be mocking this and dismissing this lightly. It just goes to show that it's still somewhat ok to use "gayness" perjoratively. That's kinda sad - and it's kinda sad that there might be some rich basketball players who can mock a blue-collar worker trying to serve them. That's very disturbing.

People can say this is "no big deal" but then you're really part of the problem and on the wrong side of history.

 

Guys cmon we all know this isn't true,it shouldn't even be speculated, something controversial as this wouldn't have become public now after a year when it happened.

"Sneaky Peaky?"......yeah uh nobody says that...........

so there's nothing really to see here, Happy April Fools