Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Laughter is the Best Medicine - Tell us a joke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SIer formerly known as Joe B. who wrote (9842)	5/20/1999 12:28:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 62549

I LOVE IT!!! Clarification: I love the restriction, not the lawsuit. That lawyer should calm down and go find somewhere else to live. So far, being a lawyer is NOT a protected classification. (Yes, I really am a lawyer.)

To: SIer formerly known as Joe B. who wrote (9842)	5/20/1999 1:58:00 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 62549

>> As far as I know, there is no case law deciding this one way or another Not true. A New York (New Jersey?) court ruled that it was ok to discriminate against lawyers in a similar case (I heard this from a lawyer who was looking for an apartment in Manhattan). That case was slightly different though. The building had a no-lawyer rule. The woman who rented it lied about being a lawyer. Later on she sued the building over something and was evicted on the grounds that she had lied on her application. She countered that even so, the building could not have discriminated against her for being a lawyer, but the court decided otherwise. ST