Sign in / up

back to article Harassed Oracle employee wins case, cops huge legal bill

Rebecca Richardson, the former Oracle employee who recently won a case against the company over sexual harassment committed by a former colleague, found out late last week that it was a pyrrhic victory after being hit with a monster legal bill. Richardson's case against Oracle, which was liable for the actions of a harassing …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. TheOtherHobbes
      Reply Icon

      Re: Where's the justice here?

      Not many people understand that for most lawyers and judges, 'justice' is a procedural concept, not a moral one.

      This surprised me when I found out, but according to people familiar with the matter that's how most of the profession sees it.

      6 1
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Where's the justice here?

        Indeed. My family lawyer is of the view (though wouldn't admit it en clair) that if the evidence presented is, say, contrary to the laws of physics, so much the worse for the laws of physics. The fact is that law is designed to function in a morality, philosophy and science free vacuum, because this is more profitable for lawyers.

        3 1
        1. Throatwobbler Mangrove
          Reply Icon

          Re: Where's the justice here?

          "The fact is that law is designed to function in a morality, philosophy and science free vacuum, because this is more profitable for lawyers."

          That's misplaced here, though. The whole point of penalising people who refuse to accept perfectly decent settlement offers is to stop them litigating everything to death and then demanding the other side cops the massive legal bills that they have run up. The rule /discourages/ the unnecessary use of lawyers.

          0 0
      2. Johan Bastiaansen
        Reply Icon
        Happy

        'justice' is a procedural concept

        Indeedy. But all this nonsense goes out the window when they become a victim eh...

        0 1
  2. g e
    FAIL

    WTF?

    We rule in your favour now we're going to turn your life to shit materially on top of your emotional harm.

    How the hell is that justice under any system.

    9 4
    1. Mark 65
      Reply Icon

      Re: WTF?

      "Welcome to Australia, fuck you, get over it"

      Seems to be the legal spirit.

      2 2
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: WTF?

      It's Australia... who did we formerly ship to Australia?

      3 4

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. David Ireland

    Settlement + costs

    There's something not right here: An offer of compromise is meant to cover the the claimants costs, or it's irrelevant. Either the fact that the costs up to the point of the offer is reported in the article is a red herring, or it appears the judge made a serious error in taking the offer of compromise into account.

    2 0
    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Settlement + costs

      An offer of settlement is whatever those offering it believe is fair in their mind regardless what the claimant thinks. The claimant can either choose to accept it or proceed with their claim.

      I might believe your claim against me merits £10 compensation and I may offer £50 as a gesture of goodwill and to cover what I believe your reasonable costs would have been. I am not going to entertain your claim for £1,000 nor am I obliged to.

      You may consider my £50 offer derisory but the court has to take it into account if you take it to court and they will take my side if they think the same as me that £50 was generous. I tried to settle and minimise costs for you, me and the court. You decided to go ahead no matter what the cost so you end up paying those, yours and mine, even if you win the case. I already gave you 'a win' but it wasn't good enough; the court is saying it was and should have been.

      1 0
  4. Daggersedge

    Good!

    So someone made some 'sexually suggestive' comments to her and she rushed off to court. I'm glad she has been left with huge costs because maybe it will make other women think twice before they bleat about their 'emotional injuries' or sexism or whatever other nonsense comes out of their mouths.

    I'm a woman and one of the reasons I wouldn't hire a woman is because some of them find everything to be sexist. They should grow up or stay out of the work place. They should also learn that if they want to have a baby, they should do it on their own time and not expect anyone else to pay them or hold a job open for them.

    5 19
    1. cocknee
      Reply Icon
      Big Brother

      Re: Good!

      You sound like a bundle of laughs, think most would hate to work for/with a miserable selfish spiteful old witch like you sound. Though I'm sure there's some concentration camps somewhere in the world that could do with your touch.

      3 6
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Windows

        Re: Good!

        Actually, she sounds like her head is screwed on.

        You call one of these "emotionally sensitive" women (or "men") a name and see how long it takes to wipe the smile off your face as you are dragged through a process which, in all probability, will result in a fine / losing your job etc etc...

        A slighty off-the-cuff remark these days will land you in a load of trouble because we are so entrenched in not offending people its now not even funny.....

        I work with em, i once told my colleugue that our new team leader was a "twat", quietly between myself and him. Some politically correct, offended by anything lesbian tree hugger heard this and off she went reporting me... I had offended her by calling HIM a twat, she had just overheard me whilst walking past and that was enough for a full investigation into why i thought he was a class 1 twat, why i shouldn't have said it and how it's not done these days... I'm 44, not 21 and having some farty little 20 year old report me shows what a fucking joke this system of political correctness is. I shall be glad when i expire. Our planet and future standing is being ruined by people who cannot see beyond their own imposed moral standards.....

        All these people with these "issues" should all be taken to somewhere where real abuse happens, a place where, for the perpatrators there tends to be no recriminations and the victim is ostracised...

        They would soon shut the fuck up about being called "love" or "darling" or whatever...

        Offence is taken, not given and its all to easy these days to scream "i've been insulted", then sit back, waiting for the vultures (lawyers) to jump on the band wagon.

        That daft cow who took offence at a dongle joke a few weeks ago and had some innocent chap sacked.. THATS the kind of loose emotionally tetchy idiot we DONT want in the workplace.

        13 8
        1. Tom 13
          Reply Icon

          Re: should all be taken to somewhere where real abuse happens

          I've often had the same thought.

          Followed almost immediately by a small voice saying "Except they'd probably fit right in with the rest of the abusers, and might even surpass some of them with their vileness."

          1 1
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good!

      @Daggersedge - "I'm a woman"

      And I'm a dog

      6 4
    3. Ru
      Reply Icon
      Meh

      Re: Good!

      I'm a woman and

      You very clearly are not.

      4 4
      1. mark 63 Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Good!

        "You very clearly are not."

        Well after trawling through dagger's past posts like a deranged stalker I can confirm She is , in fact, a woman.

        Or damn serious about maintaining the illusion

        2 1
    4. Tom 13
      Reply Icon

      Re: Good!

      Yes those kinds of women are out there. Based on what's been reported in this article, she doesn't seem to be one of them.

      5 0
    5. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good!

      If you were to read not just this article but the linked preceding article, you might have noticed that the harassment had been carried out over several months, and that there were eleven incidents in all. More over, some of these incidents occurred in meetings, and were considered by those present as unnecessary and inappropriate. This all accumulates to harassment, with or without the sexual overtones of the incidents.

      You will also note that she reported these incidents to her manager, who referred them to HR, who then failed to investigate and resolve the problems satisfactorily in part because Oracle Australia were not compliant with Australian laws over such matters.

      If you then follow the link to the court document, you might get an idea as to just how bad the whole mess was. It wasn't just that she was being subjected to 'suggestive' comments, but that they were being delivered in public, so were particularly embarrassing. What surprises me is that no one else stepped in to take the salesman responsible to task before it went so far as to require HR involvement, and certainly should have been stopped well before she took it to court.

      As to your last comment about why you would never hire a woman: If you are indeed a woman, I trust you intend to remain firmly unemployed. You are certainly not someone I would ever wish to work for.

      7 1
    6. nsld
      Reply Icon
      Childcatcher

      Re: Good! @daggersedge

      "I'm a woman and one of the reasons I wouldn't hire a woman is because some of them find everything to be sexist. They should grow up or stay out of the work place. They should also learn that if they want to have a baby, they should do it on their own time and not expect anyone else to pay them or hold a job open for them."

      On the one hand I don't disagree with you, but equally, as a male with kids, why does the law not afford me the same protections it affords to women over maternity/paternity leave?

      In this age of equality we still have many inequalities to contend with.

      Interestingly, the femonazi's bang on about equal rights in the workplace but I have never once heard them say that men should have the same rights afforded to women over maternity/paternity.

      1 1
      1. mark 63 Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Joke

        Re: Good! @daggersedge

        Stan: I want to have babies.

        Reg: You want to have babies?!?!

        Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

        Reg: But ... you can't HAVE babies!

        Stan: Don't you oppress me!

        Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?

        0 0
      2. magrathea
        Reply Icon

        Re: Good! @daggersedge

        We can only afford to give special, elevated consideration to the problems one sex - If everyone (men included) claimed women’s special societal benefits (legal and societal) , the whole system would collapse. Women get these benefits because women are conditioned from childhood to expect special preferential treatment from males and men are conditioned to accept the hit without complaint. Society couldn't work if men were made legally equal to women. Please try to be practical about this

        0 1
    7. Johan Bastiaansen
      Reply Icon
      Devil

      Re: Good!

      I didn't know the Australian branch of the Taliban recruited women. How very open minded of them.

      0 0
  5. Miek
    Big Brother

    The courts are for the rich folk to use don't you know ?

    4 2
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bit of a non-story, really

    If you go to law, it's probably a good idea to (a) learn a little about it, and (b) listen to what the experts *you* pay tell you.

    In the UK, and it seems Australia, and most US states, it is not automatic that "loser pays costs". It may be a general principle, but costs are awarded at the discretion of the judge. And occasionally, judges can rule to make a point.

    There was a case recently in the UK (neighbour dispute), where because the plaintiffs had turned down a previous offer, the judge refused to award costs. They appealed it to the supreme court, who upheld it.

    What people forget, is - by definition - going to court is a last resort. There is no more (lawful !) extreme action. Therefore, it follows, that the plaintiff must have tried everything else first. Judges really do people whose first action is sue.

    The flipside is that plaintiffs who *have* exhausted all other avenues - and can show it - judges can be very sympathetic.

    4 5
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bit of a non-story, really

      "In the UK, and it seems Australia, and most US states, it is not automatic that "loser pays costs". It may be a general principle, but costs are awarded at the discretion of the judge"

      This is factually incorrect, as the article makes entirely clear. The judge was unable to award costs, on a point of law.

      Incidentally, the Supreme Court in the UK does not entertain cases of neighbour dispute. They just don't. It's not their remit. They deal with cases of constitutional importance that affect the entire population. Where boundary fences lie doesn't really cut it.

      So not to put too fine a point on it, you're just making shit up. Who knows why.

      3 4
      1. JimmyPage Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        @AC 9:08

        Ah, found it. It was the *High* court that ruled.

        A small error of fact,

        1 3
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AC 9:08

          "A small error of fact"

          No, not really, it's the exact opposite of the register article, and the opposite of the point you were trying to make. The couple in that story lost their court case, and had to pay the costs of the case. They appealed that decision and lost.

          The article is about someone who won their court case, but ended up with a huge bill, because the amount they won didn't cover court costs.

          These are not in any way the same thing. Why do you think they are?

          5 2
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bit of a non-story, really

      except in the case of patent law in which case judges seem to let it go on forever

      0 0
  7. Alan Mackenzie
    WTF?

    $224,000??

    How on earth did her lawyers manage to run up such a huge bill? It seems like an "ordinary" sexual harrassment case, not a round of Apple vs. Samsung.

    Even if the lawyers were charging $500/hour (which seems excessive to me), that would work out at ~450 hours of work. What, precisely, did her lawyers spend several hundred hours doing?

    4 0
    1. TheOtherHobbes
      Reply Icon

      Re: $224,000??

      Playing with a spreadsheet and cackling, at a guess.

      5 0
      1. Miek
        Reply Icon
        Linux

        Re: $224,000??

        Yeah, the new office layout is a Doozy, I'll factor 450 hours into retraining costs.

        0 0
    2. Don Jefe
      Reply Icon
      Happy

      Re: $224,000??

      Lawyers have different rates for procedural issues. If a judge is in involved costs skyrocket, ostensibly because of more paperwork. $500 per hour is not that high for a lawyer and there are often multiple specialty lawyers from the firm working simultaneously on a case, so it is easy to hit several thousand an hour in collection cases.

      0 0
  8. John Savard

    Another Target

    Since Oracle in the end lost the case, the fact that it offered to settle should be irrelevant; it is at fault, no court case would have existed had it behaved rightly. The only other party at fault is the employee who was the actual harasser. An offer to settle that leaves the plaintiff out of pocket can hardly be called compensatory, and hence the plaintiff should not be penalized for being unreasonable and needlessly burdening the legal system.

    3 3
    1. magrathea
      Reply Icon

      Re: Another Target

      On the other hand, if they make a reasonable offer, Oracle are only wrong to the degree / value of the actual grievance. If Oracle scratches my car, i shouldn't get to refuse reasonable offers, hire the most expensive lawyer i can find and pass them the bill for the lawyer

      2 2
  9. Bhairava
    Big Brother

    Rule 68

    In the US, in order to get the same result, Oracle would have had to offer compensation *plus* all of her costs and attorneys fees as of the date the company made the offer. That's also not considered an out-of-court settlement. It's an offer of judgment; and (if accepted) a judgment is entered against the company. The Supreme Court mucked up the system a bit in a weird little decision just last week, but that's essentially still how it works.

    1 0
  10. Snake Plissken

    This is the same law...

    That means all those cases of phone hacking against News Corp are being settled out of court.

    0 0
  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Morale of the story lesson #101

    All a bunch of horse manure if you ask me... Sorry, was that offensive? ... To a reasonable third party it would be considered such, but there is exclusion for demonstative/educational purpose.

    But, if you can't beat erm, join erm... (but thats inciteful) ... oh and, unless they have the bigger wallet?

    It should not be treated as a game of monopoly.

    0 1
  12. arnold

    When every thing fails!

    It seems that this lady was setup since the get go and no matter what your legal algorithm is, there is always the resort of the method to deal with this situation .... It is clear that Australian laws are made ambiguous intentionally to benefit the party of choice by the judicial system, not by right or wrong to dissuade people from asserting any rights.... So the only recourse for anybody in such a situation would be a stiletto switchblade

    or an automatic .45 ....

    0 2
  13. mark 63 Silver badge
    Flame

    Blood suckers

    As usual the only winners are the blood sucking lawyers.

    They should be on a set wage - that of an admin clark.

    How the F**k does it cost £1000 (and about 2 months) to change ownership of a house?

    Licence to print money......

    And most of thems job is aid and abet crimnals!! yet somehow this is a lauded professor.

    0 0
  14. arnold

    Perfect laws!

    Lets assume that the laws offer a wide latitude to resolve disputes ... and it is up to the lawyers to present the arguments in support of the litigants, but if those lawyers fail to represent and make use of all the case law to support their claims and damages ... the judge has no choice but to limit the award for what their bargain for .

    And who says the plaintiff lawyers did not got paid? .... they might got paid to arrive at the exact result that they got! .... they got paid to drive the case to the ground.

    Who knows a law firm that works so hard towards a loosing result without anticipating the end?

    Those are the questions to ponder. Not Australia or England ....

    0 0
  15. arrbee

    wouldn't happen in the UK

    because if you take on a big company in the High Court the first thing they will try, before the case starts, is to ask the court to require that you post a surety (bond) to show you can afford their costs if you lose - typically somewhere north of 100K. The music biz use this tactic to keep stroppy musos in their place, although I've heard they can act quite peeved if the demand is reciprocated (a useful tactic if you're dealing with the usual maze of subsidiaries, distributors, etc).

    0 0
  16. nsld
    Paris Hilton

    This kind of thing is pretty common

    In both the UK and Australia there is a legal term called a "Calderbank offer" which very basically means you make an offer, and if its not accepted and ultimately the court award is lower then costs are apportioned from the date of the offer to the party which continued the fight.

    The problem with this arises when the party, despite the legal advice to take the offer opts to continue and then in victory finds the award is much lower.

    All legal cases are ultimately a bit of a lottery, even more so when the damages are speculative, and as is the case here, her case clearly had legs but those legs where not long enough.

    It could have been worse, had she lost the bill would be even bigger.

    Paris as she makes bad decisions and gets shafted all the time

    0 0
  17. arnold

    It all boils down to!

    Lets not lose sight of the victim here ( she won her case to prove it ) ... the moral question is; should the predators be protected at all costs and the prey should be punished to make an example of what not to do?

    .... so the establishment would not loose face?... questions to ponder...

    0 0
    1. Michael Thibault
      Reply Icon

      Re: It all boils down to!

      Loaded+rhetorical question. Do you mind if I call "Bullshit!"on that?

      What was the plaintiff after in this instance i.e. what, for her, did 'justice' mean? Compensation? Formal recognition by, and in, the court that harassment had occurred? Both simultaneously? That the company made an offer part-way through proceedings could be taken by many, if not most, that they'd acknowledged that she had some basis for bringing the suit. Those a little closer to legal matters would recognize that the offer did not necessarily carry with it an admission of guilt or culpability. That she continued beyond that offer--which, if I read things correctly, brought her up level with respect to her costs to that point in time--suggests strongly that she wanted above all the court's official word on whether or not harassment had occured. She got that.

      However, there's no free lunch, and the rules of the game are known, or knowable. The particular filip here is one she could, and should, have seen coming. It seems the plaintiff got what she wanted; her own actions suggest that that is so. Should she be entitled to more? Apparently no(ugh)t.

      0 0
      1. arnold
        Reply Icon

        Re: It all boils down to!

        Lets put it another way...... how about if that lady is your mother, wife, sister or daughter? .... will the outcome matter to you? ..... In this case law and lawyers don't matter, its personal! ...

        There are no rhetorical questions in here, just brutal reality handed over to you by your elected representatives!..

        0 0
        1. magrathea
          Reply Icon

          Re: It all boils down to!

          "Lets put it another way...... how about if that lady is your mother, wife, sister or daughter?"

          Let's put it another way; say it's your uncle and he is claiming he was horribly harrased by a woman and deserves 250,000 compensation for all his anguish

          0 0
  18. Mr. Chuck
    FAIL

    law vs justice

    The legal system is about the law, not about justice, which is quite another thing. Since a civil action is, as mentioned before, about redress and not punishment, if the woman in question refused to settle she was obviously trying to make a point--and if you try that against one of the most famously litiigious and laywered-up corporations on the planet, you only have yourself to blame. Personally I reckon I would have been pretty happy with 85k for some offensive comments, but that's just me. Since I am probably genetically unable to internalise the higher concerns of the sisterhood (being a bloke) I may be all messed up about that.

    This is not to say I have any sympathy whatever for the other side, and I've long believed that 10% of all lawyers should be driven into the sea each year (along with marketing departments and politicians) as a warning to all the others. However, no-one seems disposed to adopt this enlightened policy just yet. So, it is what it is. I think she has either been badly advised, or ignored good advice.

    0 0
    1. arnold
      Reply Icon

      Re: law vs justice

      It is obvious, it is pretty hard to modernize feudalism ..... specially by a small country ( population ) .... it would be better to stick with Roman law.... like most modern countries have!...

      0 0
  19. Havin_it
    Facepalm

    Misdirection, m'lud

    What 100% of commentards have misrepresented here is the actual subject of the case. Everyone debating the issue of harrassment misses the point entirely: it would be the individual perpetrator who was sued/sanctioned for that.

    Rather, the issue at hand was that the woman's employer, a megacorporation who tend to like people and organisations the world over to think they are a decent sort you could take home to meet your mother, *could not be arsed* to take any action to help an employee who was being subjected to ill-treatment by another employee. If it had had the intestinal fortitude, compassion and common bloody sense to put its own house in order, it's likely nobody need have seen the inside of a courtroom, and it would not be left with (as well as a lot of bad press due to this outcome) one employee stigmatised, and one outright annihilated. FFS all it probably would have taken is a light but firm word in his shell-like at an early stage...

    1 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like