Truth comes out: Frank the Firefighter really knows his way around a courtroom

[KamaAina]

if only he'd gone to law school...

http://www.slate.com/id/2222087

Ricci is invariably painted as a reluctant standard-bearer; a hardworking man driven to litigation only when his dreams of promotion were shattered by a system that persecutes white men. This is the narrative we will hear next week, but it somewhat oversimplifies Ricci's actual employment story. For instance, it's not precisely true, as this one account would have it, that Frank Ricci "never once (sought) special treatment for his dyslexia challenge." In point of fact, Ricci sued over it....

According to local newspapers, Ricci filed his first lawsuit against the city of New Haven in 1995, at the ripe old age of 20, for failing to hire him as a firefighter. That January, the Hartford Chronicle reported that Ricci sued, saying "he was not hired because he is dyslexic." The complaint in that suit, filed in federal court, alleged that the city's failure to hire Ricci because of his dyslexia violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frank Ricci was one of 795 candidates interviewed for 40 jobs. According to his complaint, the reason he was not hired was that he disclosed his dyslexia in an interview. That case was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees.

In 1998, Ricci was talking about filing lawsuits again, this time over a dispute with his new employer, Middletown's South Fire District—which had hired him in August of 1997. According to a Hartford Courant report of Aug. 11, 1998, Ricci was dismissed from the Middletown fire department after only eight months. He promptly appealed his dismissal, claiming that fire officials had retaliated against him for conducting an investigation into the department's response to a controversial fire. A story in the Hartford Courant dated Aug. 9, 1997, has Ricci vowing "to pursue this to the fullest extent of the law."...

The other way to look at Frank Ricci is as a serial plaintiff—one who reacts to professional slights and setbacks by filing suit, threatening to file suit, and more or less complaining his way up the chain of command. That's not the typical GOP heartthrob, but I look forward to hearing Sen. Cornyn's version of that speech next week as well.

Humph!

[spanone]

1. mr ricci seems like a pain in the ass

[Ikonoklast]

5. So, standing up for oneself under the laws of this country is being

"a pain in the ass"?

I sued an employer for wrongful termination, and won. Was I being a pain in the ass?

Or should I have just rolled over and let them do whatever, and take it?

Seems to me Mr. Ricci is winning his litigation...the court seems to agree with his legal positions.

And the man has a learning disability to boot.

[KamaAina]

7. If New Haven had given him reasonable accommodation for the learning disability

either initially OR for the promotion exam, we wouldn't be here.

[imdjh]

9. +1

[lamp_shade]

2. Thank you. I can't wait til Tuesday. I understand Monday will be all introductions and

senators "speechifying" (grand standing). I'll be watching anyway.

[rurallib]

3. Rosa Parks was an activist who is always painted as an accidental heroine

The incident in Birmingham(?) was not exactly an accident. I am not in any way saying Rosa Parks is not a hero, just that the NAACP knew that if pushed somebody would create a scene that could bring about change.
Seems like Ricci is sort of the anti-Parks. Someone used by those wishing to spark an incident to turn the clock back.
Thanks so much for this little extra insight that strips away the veneer of accidental crusader.
ETA and a kickerooni to the greatest page.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. He'd never have cut it in law school -

we learn how to compromise there, when we know it's in the best interest of our client. This guy looks like a hardhead who never quits.

He's really not that different from people who make their living by falling down in parking lots next to Sears, KMart, Macy's, Bloomingdales, Nordstrom. They're the real pros.

I wonder how this guy is going to fare in his job now. He's a marked man, and he'd better not fuck up. One things you can be sure of - there are a whole lot of brother firefighters who do not like him.

Good luck, Mr. Ricci.................

[imdjh]

10. He won. Did he not? nt

[Rage for Order]

26. Really?

He's (Frank Ricci's) really not that different from people who make their living by falling down in parking lots next to Sears, KMart, Macy's, Bloomingdales, Nordstrom.

By all accounts he is very good at his job, i.e. being a firefighter. That's quite a bit different than being a professional con artist who files baseless lawsuits for a living. It's not surprising that you view this man with scorn and derision. He upset your template of how you think the world should work. This pisses you off, and you must tear him down regardless of how dishonest your claims have to be in order to do so.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

27. Really?

I didn't know that.

Thank you for that insight.

I feel complete as a woman now, and even more complete as a human being.

I shall go on now, new and shiny into this world, and view the world with my shiny, new, complete eyes.

Thank you for enlightening me. I am so fortunate to have lived this long to have been able to reap the benefit of your genius insight.

Bless you for your generosity.

I shall dedicate the rest of my life to you.

Amen...........................

[Raineyb]

28. There's nothing template upsetting about the notion of white privilege

quite the opposite in fact. And THAT is what this exceedingly entitled fuck did.

[Fuzz]

6. So, the right's new hero is a serial litigator? Nice.

[imdjh]

8. I never saw it as a case of Right and Left. I saw it as right and wrong.

The firefighters were right and the city was wrong. But because the ruling, which included Judge Sotomayor was wrong and the review coincided with Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, then you were willing to throw the firefighters under the bus along with your integrity. Nice.

[Fuzz]

12. I threw no one anywhere. Just commented on the irony of the situation,

though feel free to opine as to my what my opinions are all you like.

[Ignis]

24. Oh, the delicious irony!

Next time your favorite Rightie starts blathering about that awful state of the legal system in the US, remind of them of Lawsuit Frank. :)

[Selatius]

11. The problem of settling out of court is that you never know who is the right or wrong party here.

If his case had gone the full nine yards and was argued in a court of law, would the fire department he sued have won its case or lost it?

[KamaAina]

13. The irony is, they likely would have won

ADA suits are notoriously difficult to win, especially for "hidden disabilities" such as dyslexia. That's why Congress passed the ADA Amendments Act last year: because the Reagan/Bush-stacked courts had been steadily chipping away at the ADA.

New Haven likely figured it would be cheaper to settle than to keep litigating the matter for ages and ages. And look what happened. :eyes:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

17. "Right" and "wrong" are not concepts in the law -

there is "legal" and "illegal". They're not matters of morality, although they are historically based in moral judgments.

They are matters of law.............

[Selatius]

22. But the question still stands whether the fire department would have won if it had gone to trial.

We do not know who would've been awarded judgment in the case and likely will never know. However, given the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty, we must not, in a legal sense, assume prior guilt. By settling out of court, the fire department could still claim it is innocent of any wrongdoing even if they actually did violate the ADA. Of course, people assume settling out of court is a tacit admittance of guilt, but that holds no legal standing citing innocent until proven guilty.

That would only be relevant in the court of public opinion. We can see the various opinions here on DU with respect to whether this guy was truthfully the injured party or whether the person simply filed frivolous lawsuits with no valid claim. It is for that specific reason that I posed the original question.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

23. "Innocent until proven guilty"

is a concept used in criminal cases.

This is a civil matter.

There is no finding of guilty or not guilty - there is only liable or not liable in civil matters. There is no jail time in civil matters - there are money awards, or, in contract cases, the occasional specific performance sanction.

You need to understand the basics of the matter before you draw any conclusions. The difference between criminal and civil is huge. I would urge you to read up on it. It's fascinating stuff, and very basic.

[ShadowLiberal]

14. That's why Ricci should have just stayed home after winng his SC case, these attacks

I thought Ricci seemed to have decided to not bother to speak about Sotomayor after his long period of no comments, guess I was wrong and he was just being quiet till the Supreme Court ruled on his case.

Now Ricci only has everything to lose by speaking against Sotomayor, he has to put up with people who support Sotomayor's nomination digging up all the dirt on him, and will inevitably start to get negative and embarrassing stories about him run on the national news. It's not worth that kind of hassle, it would have been better for him to just stay out of the spotlight after he won his case.

[MicaelS]

15. And if Ricci was a seen as a Progressive poster boy,

He'd be lauded for standing up for his rights. When I was younger I swallowed the kool-aid about "frivolous lawsuits" and "tort reform". The older I get, the more I'm convinced that the only way for the average person to get justice is to use a lawyer, or threaten use of a lawyer.

[KamaAina]

16. Yes, but rather than "getting" justice,

his actions were used by the Extreme Court to deny justice to members of minority groups.

[MicaelS]

18. Obviously he and his fellow plaintiffs and courts disagreed.

If I had been in his position and the same thing had happened to me, I would have sued, too.

[KamaAina]

19. Only one court disagreed.

The one stacked with right-wing ideologues by Reagan and the Bushes.

Now the RW is using this guy to try to bork Sotomayor.

[MicaelS]

21. And that's the only court that matters

And let them try to keep her off the court, it'll backfire on them, and make them look worse.

[Raineyb]

29. The only ones who disagreed were the Judicial activist asshats on the Supreme court

and they've been looking for an excuse to do exactly this for a long time. They don't give a shit about the law that has been obvious for years.

[ColbertWatcher]

20. Thank you. This certainly puts a different light on Frankie's story. k+r, n/t

[Rage for Order]

25. I love the smell of character assassination in the morning

Talk about your two-bit hit pieces. :eyes:

The author of the Slate article is deliberately taking part of the referenced article out of context:

"For instance, it's not precisely true, as this one account would have it, that Frank Ricci "never once (sought) special treatment for his dyslexia challenge." In point of fact, Ricci sued over it...."

Nevermind the fact that the linked-to article doesn't even have an author's name attached to it. In fact, the referenced article is in no way connected to Frank Ricci except for the fact that it happens to be written about him, not by him. Leaving all of that aside, even if one were to confer any legitimacy to the linked-to article, clearly the author was referring to Frank Ricci not requesting "special treatment for his dyslexia challenge" with regard to taking the test. Here is the full context of what Slate cherry-picked:

That promotion, as the whole world knows by now, is based in large part on taking a test and scoring well on it. Suffering with dyslexia Mr. Ricci has a tremendously hard time studying for and taking exams. With the characteristic tenacity and dedication that most firefighters display on a daily basis Mr.Ricci persevered in the face of such daunting odds. He spent his own money to purchase tutorial book to study for the exam. To make up for the dyslexia he hired, with his own money, a person to read and record the books so that he could study the material by listening to it and thus somewhat nullify the effects of dyslexia. Never once did Mr.Ricci request special treatment for his dyslexia challenge.

Slate says Ricci sued New Haven 14 years ago, in 1995, under the Americans with Disabilities Act for not hiring him because he is dyslexic. That is obviously an entirely separate issue, and it is intellectually dishonest to imply that Frank Ricci lied about not requesting a reasonable accomodation (which he is legally entitled to under the ADA, by the way) for his dyslexia when taking the test that resulted in the lawsuit that ended up in front of the Supreme Court.

In short, the author of the Slate article is a two-bit hack who is at best disingeuous, and at worst a flat out liar.