In almost every instance, I think people would say that they do not want to be discriminated against—not at work, not in society, not based on gender or based on race. That's a pretty hard rule to find an exception to. But there is one instance in which most people (myself included) would hope to be discriminated against. And that instance is jury duty. There is nothing worse than being forced to miss work just so you can sit and listen to a pointless lawsuit. (My personal experience with jury duty: a civil litigation suit in which a man who had 10 nose jobs was suing his plastic surgeon for deforming his face. No joke.) So that's why when I read on How Appealing about a court that approved the practice of blocking jurors based on profession, I smiled. Apparently you can't veto a juror based on race or gender, but you can veto a juror based on his or her profession. I can only hope that I would get bounced from a jury because I'm a lawyer. That would be one positive thing that resulted from getting a law degree…
Do you know what would make coming to work every day easier for me? If I could bring my dog to work with me, I'd be a happy camper. Laugh if you will, but I know quite a few solo practitioners who do just that. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels the need to bring her dog everywhere. At Crime and Federalism, I read the story of a plaintiff who wants to bring her dog with her onto the witness stand. “Why?” you may ask. Well, she claims she's suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome and that she needs her dog with her constantly to remain calm. No word on whether the court gave her permission to do this, but I'm going to guess that this is probably not going to go over well with the judge.
On that note, I'll let you go for this week; I'm sure you all have plenty of work waiting for you after the holidays. But be sure to stop by next week to see what's going on in the world of legal blogging!
|
