Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Crossover, post: 2591894, member: 1067"] In addition to being part of common parlance, "frivolous" is a legal term of art. If you are using it as the latter , I'm afraid you are mistaken. A frivolous lawsuit is one filed with no factual basis for the allegations. Filing a frivolous action can lead to sanctions being imposed on both the plaintiff and her attorney (which is why the attorney's reputation for probity matters. A lawyer who values his/her reputation is not inclined to file a frivolous suit). In this case, if Dawn did not intentionally create the atmosphere described by the AD, she has a factual basis for the second element of her claim. With respect to her allegation that the AD knew that his statement was false, or acted in reckless disregard for the truth, the court will of necessity require little by way of factual basis at the outset of the litigation . That is because the third element turns on the defendant's mindset, something that is virtually impossible for a plaintiff to know or show directly. Discovery may turn up damning comments by the AD, or facts from which the requisite mindset can be inferred. Or maybe not. I think that the complaint alleges enough to get in the door under the circumstances, hence is not frivolous. Dawn's motivations for bringing the lawsuit are legally irrelevant. That said, it strikes me that seeking an apology is morally a better reason than seeking revenge. As is seeking to reform a broken system. Finally, one of the social functions of injury to reputation cases is that they provide a public mechanism for assessing and deciding how members of a society ought to treat one another. That is something to be valued, not sneered at. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach