Former Lilydale restaurant workers' sex-harassment suit settled

A sexual harassment lawsuit that two former employees of the Moose Country restaurant in Lilydale filed against a Mendota Heights attorney has been settled out of court, in advance of a civil trial scheduled to begin Monday.

[Smartass]

OK now write this in plain English.

[ISRW]

Lori Peterson's name, here, made me do a double-take.

Ms. Peterson's had a long history of aggressively pursuing harassment cases against restaurant chains. She went after Hooters for its (tasteless and frankly really gross and unattractive) servers' outfits, back in the day. Her name attached to a lawsuit muddies the water, for me.

[Rockin John]

Usually Ms. Peterson goes after the deep pockets but times must be tough for an ambulance chaser.

[LYNN A]

You say a long history.... How many restaurants has she sued or is it just the two?

ISRW wrote:

Lori Peterson's name, here, made me do a double-take.
Ms. Peterson's had a long history of aggressively pursuing harassment cases against restaurant chains. She went after Hooters for its (tasteless and frankly really gross and unattractive) servers' outfits, back in the day. Her name attached to a lawsuit muddies the water, for me.

[Team Taz]

I have used Mr. Baders services and find it hard to believe he would engage in these activities. He's a pretty decent guy for an Attorney anyway!

[Bridge Repair Money]

Don't sexual harassment laws violate the 1st Amendment?

Why is it so important for the media, the law industry and feminists to persecute men for money over anything that has something to do with nature?

Seems like a form of prostitution to me.

[ISRW]

LYNN A wrote:

You say a long history.... How many restaurants has she sued or is it just the two?<quoted text>

We've heard her name several different times over a couple of decades, mostly for me anyway in cases involving her showily exposing some sexist policy in the food industry. In every case I've winced at the brazenness of the thing she was attacking -- Hooters is stupid and classless, it's quite true.(Even if you're trying to pitch yourself as the place with hot waitresses -- orange shorts, like that? Yeesh.) But in every case, I dunno.... It seems like a reach to describe actual "sexual harassment" specifically occurring and being directed at the plaintiffs. It's more like she's using a PR campaign to force defendants into a settlement -- as if she took the case in order to confront the broader sexism, rather than to pursue the specifics of the case for her clients.

Peterson waged a highly-visible suit, almost a "campaign" I would say, about Stroh's Beer advertisements involving the "Swedish Bikini Team." She has several articles about that one on her Web site. That one got a settlement too. What specifically, I wonder, did the 8 former employees suing in that case go through? It's hard to distinguish between their particular case and the sort of broader aims of Ms. Peterson, in my opinion. Look at this article she posted on her Web site, and tell me that all doesn't come across:
http://www.loripetersonandassociates.com/arti...

And so, as I said, seeing her name on something muddies the water for me. I don't know whether to see this as a case of misconduct by a specific employer, or whether Ms. Peterson is making an example of society's sexism. I guess my problem is with her means, ultimately.... Her aims, fine. If someone wants to mobilize public sentiment against sexist advertising, fine. Why in the form of these specific court cases, though?

[LYNN A]

There are many atty's out there known for certain types of cases they take. This one is nothing new. Maybe she does this because she really has her heart and her morals (secondary to the money) in it and she is trying to rid society of this type of behavor in the good old boys network. Who knows? But, it seems to work, so I have to say that I have nothing against her name simply because she takes on a particular type of case all too often. I would like to get arid of the G.O.B. Network also. Why not this way? You know... little girls have it from the get-go. Boys are dumb!

[WhatEver]

Lori Peterson is great! Why do you think she gets these big settlements for her clients? If there was no truth behind these women's claims, why settle out of court? Take it all the way! Didn't Schaefer settle out of court also? To me, that just shows guilt.

[St Paul Girl]

This type of harassment has been going on for years. I found it disgusting and refused to attend any of the bars the Schaefer's owned. My friends also refuse to go into any bar or eatery the scheafer's own (or did own) inparticular the "The Frontier Bar", now called the "Tavern on the Avenue", because things like this always, always went on! Schaefer thinks he is "above the law" and therefore can do what ever he wants! We find him disgusting to say the least...

[Bridge Repair Money]

WhatEver wrote:

Lori Peterson is great! Why do you think she gets these big settlements for her clients? If there was no truth behind these women's claims, why settle out of court? Take it all the way! Didn't Schaefer settle out of court also? To me, that just shows guilt.

Of course Michael Jackson, David Letterman, Bill Clinton, Roman Polanski, Rob Lowe are allowed to be big perverts.

Talk Show Prostitution and a Ponzi scam, anyone who doesn't fit the criteria gets their genitals removed just like Nazi Germany.

[WhatEver]

Bridge Repair Money wrote:

Don't sexual harassment laws violate the 1st Amendment?
Why is it so important for the media, the law industry and feminists to persecute men for money over anything that has something to do with nature?
Seems like a form of prostitution to me.

This is a joke, right?

[Bridge Repair Money]

WhatEver wrote:

<quoted text>This is a joke, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Maybe you should learn how to read -- I don't see any astrisks. Your dumpy talk show prostitution laws have not been properly ratified.

[WhatEver]

And your point being?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx...

[Bridge Repair Money]

WhatEver wrote:

And your point being?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx...

Your female inferiority complex has not been properly ratified into the constitution.

Learn how to read

[WhatEver]

Prostition? You are way off sir. Get Real.

[Bridge Repair Money]

WhatEver wrote:

Prostition? You are way off sir. Get Real.

Seems like the women who say awful things about Sarah Palin the most -- are the same women who run to HR when you say the wrong thing to HR at work.

Are you a "talk show prostitute?" Cashing in on munchausen by proxy?

[Bridge Repair Money]

ISRW wrote:

<quoted text>
We've heard her name several different times over a couple of decades, mostly for me anyway in cases involving her showily exposing some sexist policy in the food industry. In every case I've winced at the brazenness of the thing she was attacking -- Hooters is stupid and classless, it's quite true.(Even if you're trying to pitch yourself as the place with hot waitresses -- orange shorts, like that? Yeesh.) But in every case, I dunno.... It seems like a reach to describe actual "sexual harassment" specifically occurring and being directed at the plaintiffs. It's more like she's using a PR campaign to force defendants into a settlement -- as if she took the case in order to confront the broader sexism, rather than to pursue the specifics of the case for her clients.
Peterson waged a highly-visible suit, almost a "campaign" I would say, about Stroh's Beer advertisements involving the "Swedish Bikini Team." She has several articles about that one on her Web site. That one got a settlement too. What specifically, I wonder, did the 8 former employees suing in that case go through? It's hard to distinguish between their particular case and the sort of broader aims of Ms. Peterson, in my opinion. Look at this article she posted on her Web site, and tell me that all doesn't come across:
http://www.loripetersonandassociates.com/arti...
And so, as I said, seeing her name on something muddies the water for me. I don't know whether to see this as a case of misconduct by a specific employer, or whether Ms. Peterson is making an example of society's sexism. I guess my problem is with her means, ultimately.... Her aims, fine. If someone wants to mobilize public sentiment against sexist advertising, fine. Why in the form of these specific court cases, though?

Was this the same brewery that had a problem with an executive talking about a Sienfeld Episode and offending someone?

Wasn't Clinton getting knobbers while everyone else was getting sued for telling a co-worker she has a nice dress?

[LYNN A]

I have to agree with What Ever in that you are way off. there is a differene between dumpy talk and plain english. And there is also a difference between talking to impress people and the real deal. I vote for the real deal in plain english!

Bridge Repair Money wrote:

<quoted text>
Was this the same brewery that had a problem with an executive talking about a Sienfeld Episode and offending someone?
Wasn't Clinton getting knobbers while everyone else was getting sued for telling a co-worker she has a nice dress?

[LYNN A]

Oh, and U R dumb!!!!!