Mostly agree, though I think that with some employers and employment situations it’s sometimes better to start with just making them wonder instead of actually having to worry about them hearing you’re interviewing elsewhere. Depends on the situation.

Start blocking off afternoons on your calendar and wearing very nice business clothing/makeup/haircut/polished shoes on those mornings. Even if you’re not interviewing elsewhere, make them think you are.

Yesss please correct. Having your conviction reversed and the state deciding not to prosecute again is not the same thing as being acquitted.

I don’t know the law in Indiana but in general in the U.S. courts have been getting more and more permissive with regard to suits by children against their parents for emotional injury. There have been a number of law review articles on the topic in the last decade or so. It’s certainly possible that a court could…

Fogle didn’t file suit against the parents. His lawyers requested leave to file a third-party complaint against the parents in Jane Doe’s lawsuit against Fogle under FRCP 14(a), which allows such complaints to be filed against “a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against” the…

No, it’s just asking for an opportunity to show that the damages suffered by the plaintiff were partially the result of the actions of third parties (her parents). The “why do you make me hit you” defense would be if he were asserting claims against the plaintiff herself for contributing to her injury.

Haha I just responded to your comment below. The Daily Mail is wayyyy off on the procedural posture. I had the same thoughts you did so I got curious and went pacer searching...

It’s actually a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint under FRCP 14(a) in Jane Doe’s suit against Fogle, not a separate suit, so don’t think either is an issue, and even if they are the Court will just deny the motion and the complaint will never be filed. Case no. 1:16-cv-00578 (S.D. Ind.).

Yooo just FYI the Daily Mail appears to be wrong. Looks like it’s a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint under FRCP 14(a) against the parents in Jane Doe’s suit against Fogle. So it’s not filing a suit against them, it’s essentially asking to be permitted to make the argument that they at least share some…

It’s a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint under FRCP 14(a) in Jane Doe’s suit against him. Case 1:16-cv-00578 (S.D. Ind.).

So it looks like it’s actually his defense attorneys requesting leave to file a third-party complaint in Jane Doe’s suit against him. If they can make an argument that the parents are even partially responsible for her damages it sorta falls within the realm of their duty to represent him.

It doesn’t absolve him. It looks like he didn’t actually file a separate lawsuit against them, rather his lawyers in Jane Doe’s lawsuit against Fogle made a motion to be allowed to file a third-party complaint against the parents in that lawsuit so he has the chance to prove that they’re partially responsible for Jane…

Based on a Pacer search it looks like he didn’t file a separate suit against the parents, his attorneys defending him in Jane Doe’s suit against him filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against the parents under FRCP 14(a). So basically he’s saying that the parents are also partially liable for any…

Funny Woody thinks that the “conclusions were clear.” A five-judge appellate panel thought the evidence suggested the abuse DID occur:

It’s like I did read the article and the University of Chicago doesn’t know what’s explained in the article. My problem is not with the article, it’s with the University of Chicago outrightly accepting the “completely bastardized by regressive millenials” meaning of “trigger warning” in crafting a policy instead of…

Mmm I don’t assume that an intro to film class or a class on modernist literature will include graphic depictions of combat violence or graphic depictions of rape, but some do.

If that’s not what this is about they should explain what it’s about instead of using the phrase “trigger warnings” incorrectly.

So the University of Chicago opposes trigger warnings because they don’t know what trigger warnings are and oppose the activities that people wrongfully attribute to that concept? That seems silly.

I don’t understand how warning people before you discuss things that are likely to be triggering to trauma survivors with PTSD gets in the way of academic freedom. Freedom of speech is about the freedom to speak, not the freedom to be listened to even by people who will be forced to relive their traumas by what you’re…

I actually got this at a job - they kept hinting that maybe I should be getting married soon. I was the only unmarried person in my position. Eventually realized that since they’re the best firm in the area but a terrible firm compared to firms in other areas, they prefer people to be tied down to the area in some…