Every once in a while you just got to shake your head at where the legal profession gets its thinking.

case in point:
1] guy kills wife in 1990
2] gets 7 years in slammer, released 1998
3] applies for job teaching electronics at trade school, skips over question: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime"
4] gets hired.
5] 2004 school discovers ' omission' in record and fires him.
6] teachers' union steps in and defends guy on grounds that ' crime' was unrelated to his duties as a teacher and his record at school was' unblemished'
7] arbitrator agrees and re-instates teacher.
8] School appeals to Courts.
9] Courts -GASP - agree with arbitration - 'omission of previous incarceration' had no bearing on his abilities or competence as a teacher. he's got to be rehired. [ doesn't address his trustworthiness, given he's a liar! ]
10] school is considering appealing to a higher court..

school gets bad rep for ' harbouring a killer, ends up paying big bucks to take case to court,
calls into question the whole relevance and usefulness of even asking question on application in first place..

Guess convicted robbers, killers and whatnot can be hired if their crimes have no ' bearing' on their ability to teach/do the job.

sounds reasonable to me.. grumble,mumble...

the saying 'ONLY in America' comes to mind on this one.

well gunny you would think but me and rocky are both part of the great white north im from manitoba hes from alberta and as sad as this may seem it is much much worse in canada

worse by over ten fold

too true. Never ceases to amaze and sadden me whenever someone tosses a lawyer into the mix. They can turn even the most common sense of things into a financial, moral quagmire.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thegunny,

speaking of lawyers...

see that the Judge who lost his suit over his suit is appealing his case to a higher court still after $ 54 million dollars in damages against the local dry cleaners who ' lost' his pants.

the cleaners even waived the damage clause in their last go round allowing the judge to skip out on the $ 85,000 legal fees the cleaners rung up for which the judge was charged with paying. [ seems that 'outraged citzens' raised the money on their behalf ]

judge has been warned by his bosses that he ' may not be' re-appointed to his bench when his term in up next year and there might also be ' disciplinary actions' against him for ' demeaning ' or ' impuning' the legal profession through his actions in this case.. so far he's plugging on to fight the case over the legal meaning of ' satisfaction guaranteed '..

only in America!!

yeah, but he does have a point about satisfaction gauranteed part. How far should one expect that to extend. Agreed that 54 million is way over the top though. It should have at least been worth the cost of the actual bill times 2.