A Blue Bottom

Note to corporate anti-discrimination coaches: make sure your students know that honesty is not the best policy.

I found this the other day in a Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit against NBC Universal: "Tellez admitted to plaintiff that if it were up to him he would have kept plaintiff, but her age did not fit the 'new look,' and when asked by plaintiff, responded in writing, 'who says it isn't age discrimination?'"

Not the plaintiff.

This is a pretty entertaining suit, by the way (at least it is if you're not a party). The plaintiff claimed she got into trouble because of her blue bottoms.

Really. She'd been a "stuntwoman and actress" for more than a decade in the Universal Studios Theme Park Waterworld show when her bosses decided that the performers should have new costumes. She complained about the pushup bras and the flesh colored bottoms. (Really.)

On the first day with the new suits, "plaintiff's left breast fell out of her costume during her performance."

But it was the flesh-colored bottoms that really bothered this plaintiff.

"During every show, plaintiff would go across the set on a circus rope above the audience and everyone in the audience could stare up her skirt at these flesh colored bathing suit bottoms, giving the appearance that plaintiff was naked."

Talk about a thrill ride.

The plaintiff, however, said she was embarrassed and decided to go with the blue bottoms that came with her old costume. This, in turn, allegedly caused some consternation among her bosses who decided to come as a group to one of her shows and "watched plaintiff's performance, specifically plaintiff's bathing suit bottoms, to determine whether or not they were noticeable. In order to do this, these individuals had to specifically look and stare at plaintiff's bathing suit bottoms."

In corporate America, the bottom line is everything.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS DISCRIMINATION. The following is from a Los Angeles Superior Court discrimination complaint filed against Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment:

"Mehraein began to make harassing and discriminatory comments to plaintiff, including comments such 'it does not matter what you think, you are to make me happy and that is your job,' and 'it doesn't matter what you recommend, all that matters is what I want.'"

Sounds like your normal job experience to me.

AMERICAN INGENUITY. I'm not easily impressed, but I was floored by this passage from a Los Angeles Superior Court suit filed by a manufacturer against a former employee:

"During the relevant period that Defendant was working for plaintiff, defendant was secretly designing and fabricating prototypes for three different companies that were all unrelated to plaintiff. The prototypes were for a stripper pole extension, training wheels for a moped and a TV stand."

Now there's someone who thinks outside the box.

Now does anyone know why you'd need a stripper pole extension? Where would it extend to?

I'm picturing a stripper pole extending sideways out from a moped with a TV at the end of the pole in case the stripper gets bored.

It's so nice to fantasize.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit