So says Flint v. Coach House, Inc. (Ky. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2011), quite correctly. (Many antidiscrimination laws bar retaliation for filing a complaint alleging prohibited discrimination based on race, religion, sex, and so on; but antidiscrimination laws generally do not bar retaliation for simply filing lawsuits on other topics.)
Rand says:
They also generally don’t bar retaliation for being a lawyer. For a profession that drives law, it’s funny the way we leave ourselves open sometimes.
October 12, 2011, 8:29 pmLibertarian says:
The defendant was a condo association charged with treating the plaintiff differently than other association members.
Depending on state law, a condo association may be barred from discriminating among its (similarly situated) members as a mater of corporate law, under a contractual duty, or under a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
This is far different from a general duty not to “discriminate,” though it appears that there were no supporting facts in any event.
October 12, 2011, 9:18 pmNovember 4 roundup says:
[...] “Kentucky antidiscrimination law doesn’t bar discrimination based on litigiousness” [Volokh] [...]
November 4, 2011, 6:30 am