Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:No, they're in violation of the law (Score 1) 779

by tikk (#26188369) Attached to: Diskeeper Accused of Scientology Indoctrination

Diskeeper has to comply with both laws, but it's up to the plaintiffs under which statute they wish to bring their suit. They could've even claimed that Diskeeper violated both FEHA and EEOC claims (or merely EEOC claims); but claiming violations under the EEOC would've permitted Diskeeper an opportunity to remove the case to Federal Court. There is no argument for removal to Federal Court where the only bring state claims.

Comment: Re:No, they're in violation of the law (Score 2, Interesting) 779

by tikk (#26188137) Attached to: Diskeeper Accused of Scientology Indoctrination

The EEOC is not relevant here, as the Complaint cites California state causes of action only (which keeps the case in state court as opposed to federal court). California's FEHA statute is similar to the EEOC, with the exception that FEHA permits unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, whereas EEOC damages are capped.

People will buy anything that's one to a customer.

Working...