tmiller: What, no duty to aid a victim in peril as a legal issue in the last episode?

Yeah, that whole setup just didn’t sit right with me. What were they supposed to do, stop the attack? They’re not sworn peace officers with weapons and training, they’re four chuckleheads with a videocamera. In fact, I’d argue that by videotaping that criminal act, they generated evidence in a non-hazardous manner, which could be used to aid the police in searching for the suspect.

I read that the original finale was supposed to be their combined funeral, and they would have had key characters eulogizing them (the Soup Nazi, Teri Hatcher, etc.). They would have started out kind of nice, but by the end of the episode everybody would have been talking about what complete shitdicks Jerry et al had been. They could have even had the callback to the first episode by having the funeral director and assistant do the “second button” banter as the last dialogue.

Malvolio: This imbalance of power in most employment relations is a fundamental assumption (I think a correct one) in the labor and employment laws of the U.S. and pretty much all other nations. Debating that premise is a bigger issue than is appropriate for this light-hearted thread. But if you want my thoughts on the topic, feel free to e-mail me.

But I don’t buy that the legal theories and remedies have to be exact mirror images of each other. The power relationship usually favors the employer, which a whole host of employment statutes and common law rules already recognize. I could go on, but getting back to the specific topic. . .

Re “Seinfeld” and still on employment law, I recall an episode in which George was trying to milk an unemployment compensation award and wanted Jerry or Kramer to say that he had interviewed with them, using the standard “Seinfeld” fake-company name, “Vandelay Industries.”

Joseph Slater: The idea seems to have been, “what if an employer asks an (average at-will) employee if he plans to stay at the company; the employee says, ‘yes, I will,’ but in fact he’s lying; and the company reasonably relies on the employee’s statement. Do we really want to let the employer sue the employee?”

If the employee already has plans to leave? Yes, why not? He’s deceiving someone.

Joseph Slater: The power relationship usually favors the employer, which a whole host of employment statutes and common law rules already recognize.

I don’t buy that at all. If the employer had more power, he would immediately use it by lowering salaries, or at least failing to raise them, until the power equalized (assuming he’d rather have money than “power”).

But I don’t buy that the legal theories and remedies have to be exact mirror images of each other. The power relationship usually favors the employer, which a whole host of employment statutes and common law rules already recognize. I could go on, but getting back to the specific topic. . .

Re “Seinfeld” and still on employment law, I recall an episode in which George was trying to milk an unemployment compensation award and wanted Jerry or Kramer to say that he had interviewed with them, using the standard “Seinfeld” fake-company name, “Vandelay Industries.”

mbsch13: I also think this was the first indication the show gave of who one the bet.

In “The Puffy Shirt” George becomes a hand model and is warned of the dangers of self-love. Not to worry, he assures his manager, “I won a contest.”

Joseph Slater: The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to recognize an action based on an intentional misrepresentation to induce continued employment. The Court said, among other things, “if employers have to discuss future plans, then so would employees.”

Yeah, that I don’t get. The company deliberately lied to him, he reasonably relied on their representation and in consequence suffered a great deal of harm, how can have no recourse?

Michael Stack: Hilarious. I wonder if they can come up with a list for “Curb Your Enthusiasm” as well, which is a product of the genius Larry David (co-creator of Seinfeld).

The taping of Curb Your Enthusiasm did famously lead to an exoneration. A guy charged with murder was filmed by CYE crews during the taping of an episode at a Dodger game, which provided him with an alibi.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/national/main620661.shtml

Kramer: It’s a write off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off of what?
Kramer: They just write it off!
Jerry: You don’t even know what a write off is, do you?
Kramer: No. Do you?
Jerry: No I don’t!!
Kramer: No, but they do. And they’re the ones writing it off.

This case did indeed involve an employee who was fired because of a sexual harassment allegation based at least in part on the “rhymes with Delores” bit from “Seinfeld.” But his victory in a lower court was (i) later overturned on appeal, and (ii) was not because he showed he was wrongly accused of sexual harassment.

It was a contract case. A Miller Brewing supervisor told the employee that he would not be downgraded after a reorganization. He was then downgraded. He was unhappy about this. He was later fired, after a female employee accused him of making sexually inappropriate remarks. At the trial court level, plaintiff won because of the misrepresentation about the downgrade, on a contract theory.

Then, the decision was reversed on appeal. The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to recognize an action based on an intentional misrepresentation to induce continued employment. The Court said, among other things, “if employers have to discuss future plans, then so would employees.”

Having said all that, “Seinfeld” ruled.

In addition to Elaine’s cause for action, Kramer would have the right to sue Calvin Klein, who stole his idea for a beach-scented perfume.

Careless: And what was the lawsuit with the Soup Nazi?I’m not seeing anything obvious with Google, and you’d think there would be tens of thousands of hits

Maybe after Elaine acquires (against the Soup Nazi’s knowledge, via gifting through Kramer) and publishes his recipes putting him out of business?

corneille1640: Careless (re:soup nazi):The rumor I heard was that the character was based on a real life soup-seller and he sued for defamation (or something like it).I have no idea if the rumor is true, but that hasn’t stopped me from spreading it.

The Wikipedian page has a link to the real life Soup Nazi and a description of his business. A brief search of those doesn’t come up with a lawsuit. He’s one of the most famous minor characters in television history and this post claims that he sued one of the most famous shows in history for his portrayal or something related to that. That should be an exceptionally easy google search.

The rumor I heard was that the character was based on a real life soup-seller and he sued for defamation (or something like it).

I have no idea if the rumor is true, but that hasn’t stopped me from spreading it.

Malvolio: At my own office, we had to have a staff meeting to find someone who could explain what “Dolores” rhymed with.

Well, many of us have a tough time finding what Dolores rhymes with.

Malvolio: At my own office, we had to have a staff meeting to find someone who could explain what “Dolores” rhymed with.

This was not a problem for high school students at the time

josh bornstein:
Well, that was the general consensus at the meeting (and the answer given in the ever-helpful Wikipedia) but who the heck puts the accent on the second syllable?I have a fairly firm memory (from the 80s??) when Bette Midler, as part of a bit re mermaids, asked the eternal question:The question before us is:Where’s her clitoris

Yeah, I’ve heard it pronounced both ways; rhyming with “Dolores” is, I think, less common, but not unheard of.

Malvolio:
Clitoris?

Well, that was the general consensus at the meeting (and the answer given in the ever-helpful Wikipedia) but who the heck puts the accent on the second syllable?

I have a fairly firm memory (from the 80s??) when Bette Midler, as part of a bit re mermaids, asked the eternal question: The question before us is: Where’s her clitoris

SueSimp: I know last year they had one on the Shrinkage episode. Kinda made me wish I was a med student.

I WAS IN THE POOL!!! I WAS IN THE POOL!!! TELL HER I WAS IN THE POOL!!!

Guy:

Malvolio: At my own office, we had to have a staff meeting to find someone who could explain what “Dolores” rhymed with.

Clitoris?

Well, that was the general consensus at the meeting (and the answer given in the ever-helpful Wikipedia) but who the heck puts the accent on the second syllable?

I know last year they had one on the Shrinkage episode. Kinda made me wish I was a med student.

In the same episode you mention, there’s also a seen where an electrician claims he is required by law to report violations of the electrical and fire codes. I’m not a lawyer, but there might be something there.

“The Puffy Shirt”

Anyone who says “I don’t want to be a pirate” obviously lacks the capacity to contract.

Malvolio: At my own office, we had to have a staff meeting to find someone who could explain what “Dolores” rhymed with.

Clitoris?