A Manchester lawyer who threatened to sue a Concord salon for pricing haircuts differently for men and women and then took money to settle the matter was found guilty of theft by extortion.A jury took about 1½ hours to convict Daniel Hynes, 27, on Wednesday. Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Baker said Hynes sent letters to at least 19 salons in the state.
One arrived Dec. 20, 2006, at Claudia's, the North Main Street hair salon owned by Claudia Lambert. In the letter, Hynes said prices should be based on the time a cut takes or on the length of hair, instead of on gender. He wrote: "I demand payment in the amount of $1,000 in order to avoid litigation," according to court documents.
In one court document, he argued that the price structure that he saw as discriminatory had caused him stress and mental anguish, despite the fact that prices for men were less than those for women. He said he was being denied an "inherent benefit in being treated equally." He pointed to a woman's right to vote and said he benefits from her right, even though he is a man.
Now, if this were a woman who had paid more than a man for an identical haircut, then a letter to her hair salon arguing that the pricing structure is discriminatory could be appropriate. But these facts...it's just silly.
2 comments:
So, if he represented his wife, mother, sister, girlfriend, etc. would this lawsuit have had merit?
The short answer is, "no." The longer answer is that this bonehead made a few mistakes:
1) He has no standing to bring suit (this man cannot be the one that sues because females are charged more for haircuts). Let's just pretend that he was a she - the following mistakes show that he still couldn't have gotten away with it.
2) He sent the letter to a long list of salons. He basically went through the phone book and sent letters. Let's just say that my hairdresser A rips me off - I can't sue hairdressers B, C, and D because they rip people off too.
3) The letters were simply extortion. He demanded $1,000 not to sue. There are absolutely no damages he could claim against these salons. Demand letters must be based on a somewhat reasonable expectation of damages (though plaintiffs generally have an extremely inflated view of their damages). Note that this guy was not suing - there was no lawsuit. All he was doing was threatening lawsuits, hoping that they would think that $1,000 was a lot cheaper than hiring a lawyer and going to court.
4) He has no cause of action. This would need to be based on state law, and I admit that I don't know the laws of CT. However, I would be rather surprised if this would hold up in court. Most states have passed laws against gender discrimination for housing and employment, but I am not aware of any for consumer services. Even then, those laws are generally only aimed at "larger" companies (not mom and pop businesses). Generally, I have the right to discriminate against whomever I want. I could open up my own own solo practice law firm and in most states I could decide that I will only hire a white female with curly hair and is under thirty years old as my secretary (once I reach a certain number of employees, I will need to stop my discriminatory ways though). Remember, Constitutional rights are protections against government action - not against private parties. For example, a mother can tell her child to be quite. The kid cannot file suit for infringement of his First Amendment freedom of speech.
It is rather unfortunate that this suit has no merit - Wife needs a haircut and she would love to spend $13 here in Manhattan like I do.
Post a Comment