In my practice, one of the first tasks I invariably face is helping clients understand that they may not really understand how the legal system actually works, in the real world. As an example, clients often believe they have a case, when it isn't necessarily so.
In a recent post on the California Employee Rights blog, James Peters wrote:
Marital status discrimination is not hard to prove when an employer makes it a habit of [asking interviewees their marital status during job interviews]. All you have to do is look at the list of who is hired and who is not when new employees are hired.
Well, it might be a tad bit more complex than that.
Let us take a real world example. You finally get an interview for the job of your dreams. During the interview, the interviewer asks lots of questions about your experience and qualifications, but also asks you if you are married. Later, you find out that you did not get the job
Do you now rush to the courthouse?
Unless we can develop more, probably not.
Simply asking someone whether they're married is not enough to justify a lawsuit. A viable suit is one that proves that discrimination was a motive in an employer's actions. A single question, even if it's "Are you married?" just isn't enough evidence.
Thus, in my practice, the beginning of any conversation with a new client is a matter of asking a lot of questions. I am looking for evidence, which means determining whether there are enough facts to justify a suit. Clients are often surprised by what it takes to prove a case, and they're also often surprised by what their evidence proves that they didn't realize.
It's almost never about a single question. It's about a lot of questions.
Comments