Top Law Schools

He's suing Baylor for age discrimination, citing Baylor Law's refusal to take into account decades of grade inflation, thus resulting in scores of students with comparable if not inferior credentials gaining admission with a scholarship that he deserved. He had 169/3.2...

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 0626224738

even if everything he alleges is true, it's not illegal

His point about grade inflation does seem to have legs and should be well-taken. It's not as if what he's saying is illogical, but on the flip-side the graduation requirements today are much stiffer (courseloads, community service requirements, math and science, etc.). Add to that the increased demand for the college education product. Those factors would seem to be great equalizers. On top of that, how does he prove that Baylor didn't give him extra merit for his "life experience" and other soft factors?

There's something weird going on because a 3.2/168 should get into Baylor even without reverse-inflating his grades.

With no knowledge of actual age discrimination law, I don't think he has a case because after 20 years in the workforce or whatever, he's had the chance to get some softs that are unavailable to people who went to school in the 2000s. In that time he could've been elected to Congress, become the CEO of a large company, been a practicing doctor for years, etc. Even with a substandard GPA those kinds of things would open doors at T14 schools. Or he could've gone to law school back in the day when no grades where inflated. Either way it's his own fault he's getting rejected from mediocre schools.

PDaddy wrote:His point about grade inflation does seem to have legs and should be well-taken. It's not as if what he's saying isn't logical. But on the flip-side, the graduation requirements today are much stiffer (courseloads, etc.); so that would seem to be the great equalizer. On top of that, how does he prove that Baylor didn't give him extra merit for his "life experience" and other soft factors?

his point about grade inflation is retarded. grades don't inflate at some measurable rate over time like the price of milk. the playing field isn't level even among 2012 grads.

also, not illegal at all.

The inflation itself isn't illegal, but adcoms should account for it. I want to see what happens on summary judgment. My guess is that it gets kicked because the judge doesn't want to open a huge can of worms.

PDaddy wrote:The inflation itself isn't illegal, but adcoms should account for it. I want to see what happens on summary judgment. My guess is that it gets kicked because the judge doesn't want to open a huge can of worms.

should they account for it? maybe. are they required to by law? lolno.

No No No.

His defense is so number focused..he forgets the holistic part of the application process (or he forgets Baylor can always use that as an excuse for rejecting him)...whats the diff between this and a guy with a 4.0/180 filling a suit for being rejected by Yale?

Yukos wrote:There's something weird going on because a 3.2/168 should get into Baylor even without reverse-inflating his grades.

With no knowledge of actual age discrimination law, I don't think he has a case because after 20 years in the workforce or whatever, he's had the chance to get some softs that are unavailable to people who went to school in the 2000s. In that time he could've been elected to Congress, become the CEO of a large company, been a practicing doctor for years, etc. Even with a substandard GPA those kinds of things would open doors at T14 schools. Or he could've gone to law school back in the day when no grades where inflated. Either way it's his own fault he's getting rejected from mediocre schools.

Your point about "softs" speaks exactly to what I was saying above. There are equalizing factors that should have offset any perceived advantage gained by grade inflation. That having been said, there is the specter of adcoms' perceptions that he may not be desired at OCI because of his age. These schools are very concerned with employment stats, and they may view older students - though very capable - as risky on the back end. It could be seen as a form of "yield-protect", but as to employment rather than declined offers or attrition.

The question is, how does he prove this? Although I believe his age likely played a factor in his decision, I don't think he can. I completely believe that law schools have a preference that applicants be at least under 40.

JDflowergirl wrote:No No No.

His defense is so number focused..he forgets the holistic part of the application process (or he forgets Baylor can always use that as an excuse for rejecting him)...whats the diff between this and a guy with a 4.0/180 filling a suit for being rejected from Yale?

Excellent point! It sounds exactly like the white students who argue against AA, LSAT boosts or adcoms giving greater weight to the softs of URM's.

JDflowergirl wrote:No No No.

His defense is so number focused..he forgets the holistic part of the application process (or he forgets Baylor can always use that as an excuse for rejecting him)...whats the diff between this and a guy with a 4.0/180 filling a suit for being rejected by Yale?

you're giving him too much credit. baylor could have sent him a rejection letter saying: "REJECTED - SUCK IT, OLD MAN RIVER!" and this lawsuit would still be frivolous as fuck.

PDaddy wrote:

JDflowergirl wrote:No No No.

His defense is so number focused..he forgets the holistic part of the application process (or he forgets Baylor can always use that as an excuse for rejecting him)...whats the diff between this and a guy with a 4.0/180 filling a suit for being rejected from Yale?

Excellent point! It sounds exactly like the white students who argue against AA, LSAT boosts or adcoms giving greater weight to the softs of URM's.

no, it doesn't, because race and age are not remotely similar.

Even if they did discriminate, it's not illegal. Perhaps this is the Boomer's Rosa Parks moment...

fatduck wrote:

JDflowergirl wrote:No No No.

His defense is so number focused..he forgets the holistic part of the application process (or he forgets Baylor can always use that as an excuse for rejecting him)...whats the diff between this and a guy with a 4.0/180 filling a suit for being rejected by Yale?

you're giving him too much credit. baylor could have sent him a rejection letter saying: "REJECTED - SUCK IT, OLD MAN RIVER!" and this lawsuit would still be frivolous as fuck.

Well...you are wrong about that. If Baylor used any text referring to his age, it would create an issue of material fact as to the motives of the adcom, and the case could possibly survive summary judgment. Look at Reid v. Google, or other cases of that ilk. Very little evidence is needed. His problem is that the evidence he proffers so far can be rationally explained and present no genuine issues of material fact, even when construed in his favor at the summary judgment stage. But you are wrong about the "old man" comment. His attorney would love that, because it would likely lead to a settlement.

My question is, how does he attend classes there if he successfully sues the school? No student or prof would take the guy seriously unless he put on a hell of a case and did it pro se.

buckilaw wrote:Even if they did discriminate, it's not illegal. Perhaps this is the Boomer's Rosa Parks moment...

He is alleging age discrimination, that isn't illegal?

PDaddy wrote:

fatduck wrote:

JDflowergirl wrote:No No No.

His defense is so number focused..he forgets the holistic part of the application process (or he forgets Baylor can always use that as an excuse for rejecting him)...whats the diff between this and a guy with a 4.0/180 filling a suit for being rejected by Yale?

you're giving him too much credit. baylor could have sent him a rejection letter saying: "REJECTED - SUCK IT, OLD MAN RIVER!" and this lawsuit would still be frivolous as fuck.

Well...you are wrong about that. If Baylor used any text referring to his age, it would create an issue of material fact as to the motives of the adcom, and the case could possibly survive summary judgment. Look at Reid v. Google, or other cases of that ilk. Very little evidence is needed. His problem is that the evidence he proffers so far can be rationally explained and present no genuine issues of material fact, even when construed in his favor at the summary judgment stage. But you are wrong about the "old man" comment. His attorney would love that, because it would likely lead to a settlement.

My question is, how does he attend classes there if he successfully sues the school? No student or prof would take the guy seriously unless he put on a hell of a case and did it pro se.

are you suggesting the ADEA governs law school admissions?

PDaddy wrote:

buckilaw wrote:Even if they did discriminate, it's not illegal. Perhaps this is the Boomer's Rosa Parks moment...

He is alleging age discrimination, that isn't illegal?

Age discrimination is against the law in regards to employment. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm

No such law exists regarding graduate school admissions. And age is not a protected status like race or gender.

So ya, perfectly legal.

If you think about it, even if age was a protected status you could argue educating future leaders/workers who will get the most return on investment (youngs), is a compelling state interest. Or at least a rational basis.

fatduck wrote:

PDaddy wrote:

fatduck wrote:

JDflowergirl wrote:No No No.

His defense is so number focused..he forgets the holistic part of the application process (or he forgets Baylor can always use that as an excuse for rejecting him)...whats the diff between this and a guy with a 4.0/180 filling a suit for being rejected by Yale?

you're giving him too much credit. baylor could have sent him a rejection letter saying: "REJECTED - SUCK IT, OLD MAN RIVER!" and this lawsuit would still be frivolous as fuck.

Well...you are wrong about that. If Baylor used any text referring to his age, it would create an issue of material fact as to the motives of the adcom, and the case could possibly survive summary judgment. Look at Reid v. Google, or other cases of that ilk. Very little evidence is needed. His problem is that the evidence he proffers so far can be rationally explained and present no genuine issues of material fact, even when construed in his favor at the summary judgment stage. But you are wrong about the "old man" comment. His attorney would love that, because it would likely lead to a settlement.

My question is, how does he attend classes there if he successfully sues the school? No student or prof would take the guy seriously unless he put on a hell of a case and did it pro se.

Are you suggesting the ADEA governs law school admissions?

I am suggesting that this is an unusual case. It isn't an employment case. But the Baylor adcom's perception of the applicant's employment prospects may have provided a discriminatory motive for BAYLOR to deny this applicant. This is about Baylor's motives, not the employers' practices.

PDaddy wrote: I am suggesting that this is an unusual case. It isn't an employment case. But the Baylor adcom's perception of the applicant's employment prospects may have provided a discriminatory motive for BAYLOR to deny this applicant. This is about Baylor's motives, not the employers' practices.

are you a law student? you know you can't just finagle the word "employment" into a sentence and say "ah ha! so the ADEA does apply!"

it doesn't matter, at all, if baylor admitted him because he was old, or because they thought he'd have trouble being employed because he's old, or because they just thought he had a stupid face. not illegal.

PDaddy wrote: I am suggesting that this is an unusual case. It isn't an employment case. But the Baylor adcom's perception of the applicant's employment prospects may have provided a discriminatory motive for BAYLOR to deny this applicant. This is about Baylor's motives, not the employers' practices.

How did you fare in legal practice/legal research and writing class?

JDflowergirl wrote:No No No.

His defense is so number focused..he forgets the holistic part of the application process (or he forgets Baylor can always use that as an excuse for rejecting him)...whats the diff between this and a guy with a 4.0/180 filling a suit for being rejected by Yale?

I agree.

They probably just didnt like his app. Happens all the time.

I'm starting to think that you must not be a law student. When I say something isn't a protected class, I am in fact saying that age is not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

Put down your E&E's. You might be hurting yourself.

EDIT: Nice ninja edit.

buckilaw wrote:

PDaddy wrote:
I am suggesting that this is an unusual case. It isn't an employment case. But the Baylor adcom's perception of the applicant's employment prospects may have provided a discriminatory motive for BAYLOR to deny this applicant. This is about Baylor's motives, not the employers' practices.

How did you fare in legal practice/legal research and writing class?

I fared well enough to understand that discrimination cases are purely about "motive". I am also very well-versed in the standards of summary judgment, and there is an extremely high burden for dismissal, though many judges use SJ as a case-management tool that denies many deserving plaintiffs due process. And fwiw, I am only playing devil's advocate, here. I think his suit is frivolous. I am just presenting argument.

PDaddy wrote:

buckilaw wrote:

PDaddy wrote:
I am suggesting that this is an unusual case. It isn't an employment case. But the Baylor adcom's perception of the applicant's employment prospects may have provided a discriminatory motive for BAYLOR to deny this applicant. This is about Baylor's motives, not the employers' practices.

How did you fare in legal practice/legal research and writing class?

I fared well enough to understand that discrimination cases are purely about "motive". I am also very well-versed in the standards of summary judgment, and there is an extremely high burden for dismissal, though many judges use SJ as a case-management tool that denies many deserving plaintiffs due process. And fwiw, I am only playing devil's advocate, here. I think his suit is frivolous. I am just presenting argument.

if you'd paid more attention in civ pro you'd know that this case will never see summary judgment

PDaddy wrote:

buckilaw wrote:

PDaddy wrote:
I am suggesting that this is an unusual case. It isn't an employment case. But the Baylor adcom's perception of the applicant's employment prospects may have provided a discriminatory motive for BAYLOR to deny this applicant. This is about Baylor's motives, not the employers' practices.

How did you fare in legal practice/legal research and writing class?

I fared well enough to understand that discrimination cases are purely about "motive". I am also very well-versed in the standards of summary judgment, and there is an extremely high burden for dismissal, though many judges use SJ as a case-management tool that denies many deserving plaintiffs due process. And fwiw, I am only playing devil's advocate, here. I think his suit is frivolous. I am just presenting argument.

PDaddy wrote:Well...you are wrong about that. If Baylor used any text referring to his age, it would create an issue of material fact as to the motives of the adcom, and the case could possibly survive summary judgment. Look at Reid v. Google, or other cases of that ilk. Very little evidence is needed. His problem is that the evidence he proffers so far can be rationally explained and present no genuine issues of material fact, even when construed in his favor at the summary judgment stage. But you are wrong about the "old man" comment. His attorney would love that, because it would likely lead to a settlement.

Your "devil's advocate" argument seems fairly unequivocal.