It was the wrong thread

[taxwonk]

I'm getting tired of sitting around at home trying to pretend that academic writing is as fun as real work. I'm also sick of being so freaking broke all the time.

I am looking for any consulting, review, or co-counsel type arrangement. I need to stay in Chicago right now, and I am not quite up to a full BIGLAW day at the office, but I am comfortable with telecommuting. If anybody runs across something, please try to think of me.

Thanks.

[taxwonk]

Event A happens on January 15, Year Z. S/L is two years from date of event. If the case is filed on January 15, Year Z+2, is it within the S/L or must it be filed January 14?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Event A happens on January 15, Year Z. S/L is two years from date of event. If the case is filed on January 15, Year Z+2, is it within the S/L or must it be filed January 14?

I believe the 15th would be fine, but I would always file the 14th out of paranoia.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Event A happens on January 15, Year Z. S/L is two years from date of event. If the case is filed on January 15, Year Z+2, is it within the S/L or must it be filed January 14?

Start counting the day after the event.

http://avidanstern.blogspot.com/2011...atutes-of.html

BUT BUT BUT, never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever wait. I generally file cases within a month of getting them because shit goes wrong exponentially more the longer you wait.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Event A happens on January 15, Year Z. S/L is two years from date of event. If the case is filed on January 15, Year Z+2, is it within the S/L or must it be filed January 14?

From discovery of event or from discovery of damage caused by event?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

From discovery of event or from discovery of damage caused by event?

I think it's date of the event; the action is in the Claims Court of Illinois and they are pretty strict in waiving sovereign immunity. In this case, it was a slip and fall, so date of event and date of discovery were the same.

I'm filing this for my daughter, who is going pro se with some help from me. She can't find a litigator to take it because the damages are light and the fee is limited by statute to 20%.

The Clerk told me that as long as it is date-stamped by the date of the event, it's within the limitations period.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I think it's date of the event; the action is in the Claims Court of Illinois and they are pretty strict in waiving sovereign immunity. In this case, it was a slip and fall, so date of event and date of discovery were the same.

I'm filing this for my daughter, who is going pro se with some help from me. She can't find a litigator to take it because the damages are light and the fee is limited by statute to 20%.

The Clerk told me that as long as it is date-stamped by the date of the event, it's within the limitations period.

I see. Let me know if you need any help.

[Atticus Grinch]

Question: Is it fair play for a prospective employer to tell a candidate who is evaluating other offers “don’t accept any offers until you talk to me”, and then not extend any offer at all?

Imagine that the candidate in question was a finalist for two positions, neither of which is perfect, and with uncertain terms for compensation among other things. Employer #1 tells Candidate to hold off on accepting any offers from Employer #2 until he gets a chance to counter. Candidate gets pressure from Employer #2 to accept the offer, but agrees to wait because Employer #1 is still selecting. On the drop-dead Friday that Candidate gives for an offer, she waits until 3:00 pm without a call, so she sends an e-mail saying she will go with Employer #2. Employer #1 responds with an e-mail saying that he regrets he is unable to make an offer. This leads me to conclude Employer #1 was just trying to keep a fish on the line as long as possible, but doing so by implying that an offer of some kind was forthcoming. Which is surprising, since an answer that “Sorry you felt you had to take the other offer but we're still evaluating; we’re sorry we couldn’t meet the timeline but we understand” would have also been an acceptable answer (and seems safer from an EPL standpoint, FWIW). Only giving a “no” answer at that stage makes it seem like the answer was already no, making the “don’t accept elsewhere before talking to me” seem weird, unless it’s now something employers say just to string people along.

(I’m not asking because I’m on the market; this relates to a someone I’m advising. I’m mostly curious whether people on the demand side of the labor equation think this is fair play.)

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Question: Is it fair play for a prospective employer to tell a candidate who is evaluating other offers “don’t accept any offers until you talk to me”, and then not extend any offer at all?

Imagine that the candidate in question was a finalist for two positions, neither of which is perfect, and with uncertain terms for compensation among other things. Employer #1 tells Candidate to hold off on accepting any offers from Employer #2 until he gets a chance to counter. Candidate gets pressure from Employer #2 to accept the offer, but agrees to wait because Employer #1 is still selecting. On the drop-dead Friday that Candidate gives for an offer, she waits until 3:00 pm without a call, so she sends an e-mail saying she will go with Employer #2. Employer #1 responds with an e-mail saying that he regrets he is unable to make an offer. This leads me to conclude Employer #1 was just trying to keep a fish on the line as long as possible, but doing so by implying that an offer of some kind was forthcoming. Which is surprising, since an answer that “Sorry you felt you had to take the other offer but we're still evaluating; we’re sorry we couldn’t meet the timeline but we understand” would have also been an acceptable answer (and seems safer from an EPL standpoint, FWIW). Only giving a “no” answer at that stage makes it seem like the answer was already no, making the “don’t accept elsewhere before talking to me” seem weird, unless it’s now something employers say just to string people along.

(I’m not asking because I’m on the market; this relates to a someone I’m advising. I’m mostly curious whether people on the demand side of the labor equation think this is fair play.)

It's an asshole move. But you're making a big assumption in saying Employer 1had known from the outset they weren't going to make an offer.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Question: Is it fair play for a prospective employer to tell a candidate who is evaluating other offers “don’t accept any offers until you talk to me”, and then not extend any offer at all?

Imagine that the candidate in question was a finalist for two positions, neither of which is perfect, and with uncertain terms for compensation among other things. Employer #1 tells Candidate to hold off on accepting any offers from Employer #2 until he gets a chance to counter. Candidate gets pressure from Employer #2 to accept the offer, but agrees to wait because Employer #1 is still selecting. On the drop-dead Friday that Candidate gives for an offer, she waits until 3:00 pm without a call, so she sends an e-mail saying she will go with Employer #2. Employer #1 responds with an e-mail saying that he regrets he is unable to make an offer. This leads me to conclude Employer #1 was just trying to keep a fish on the line as long as possible, but doing so by implying that an offer of some kind was forthcoming. Which is surprising, since an answer that “Sorry you felt you had to take the other offer but we're still evaluating; we’re sorry we couldn’t meet the timeline but we understand” would have also been an acceptable answer (and seems safer from an EPL standpoint, FWIW). Only giving a “no” answer at that stage makes it seem like the answer was already no, making the “don’t accept elsewhere before talking to me” seem weird, unless it’s now something employers say just to string people along.

(I’m not asking because I’m on the market; this relates to a someone I’m advising. I’m mostly curious whether people on the demand side of the labor equation think this is fair play.)

What kind of position is this? Generic associate position as part of a mass hiring, or something later in the career, where there is likely one job and many candidates?

On my side of the table, the thing I always feel worst about is where we have an offer out but have to keep our number 2 and 3 choices alive in case the person declines. That is, frankly, a situation that sucks, where employers are assholes by nature and there is not much to be done about it, and it could well be what is going on here. We don't want to say, "we like you but you're not our number 1" when we may, a week later, be saying, "we love you the mostest now". I find it especially tough when I liked the number 2 or 3 choice better, but had to give way to a broader view on the first choice.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Question: Is it fair play for a prospective employer to tell a candidate who is evaluating other offers “don’t accept any offers until you talk to me”, and then not extend any offer at all?

Imagine that the candidate in question was a finalist for two positions, neither of which is perfect, and with uncertain terms for compensation among other things. Employer #1 tells Candidate to hold off on accepting any offers from Employer #2 until he gets a chance to counter. Candidate gets pressure from Employer #2 to accept the offer, but agrees to wait because Employer #1 is still selecting. On the drop-dead Friday that Candidate gives for an offer, she waits until 3:00 pm without a call, so she sends an e-mail saying she will go with Employer #2. Employer #1 responds with an e-mail saying that he regrets he is unable to make an offer. This leads me to conclude Employer #1 was just trying to keep a fish on the line as long as possible, but doing so by implying that an offer of some kind was forthcoming. Which is surprising, since an answer that “Sorry you felt you had to take the other offer but we're still evaluating; we’re sorry we couldn’t meet the timeline but we understand” would have also been an acceptable answer (and seems safer from an EPL standpoint, FWIW). Only giving a “no” answer at that stage makes it seem like the answer was already no, making the “don’t accept elsewhere before talking to me” seem weird, unless it’s now something employers say just to string people along.

(I’m not asking because I’m on the market; this relates to a someone I’m advising. I’m mostly curious whether people on the demand side of the labor equation think this is fair play.)

Not worth being bothered or thinking about much. #1 might simply be pissed he couldn't get details together in time, in that sense "he was unable to make an offer."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What kind of position is this? Generic associate position as part of a mass hiring, or something later in the career, where there is likely one job and many candidates?

Non-legal. Teaching profession. Hard to know the size of the applicant pool but probably less than 10, for what they said they were looking for, which may have changed as the process went forward.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Not worth being bothered or thinking about much. #1 might simply be pissed he couldn't get details together in time, in that sense "he was unable to make an offer."

Helpful, thanks.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Non-legal. Teaching profession. Hard to know the size of the applicant pool but probably less than 10, for what they said they were looking for, which may have changed as the process went forward.

There's a lot of bureaucracy and politics in hiring teachers. I can believe they couldn't get their shit together for a deadline set by the candidate. Normal disfunction, not assholic behavior.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There's a lot of bureaucracy and politics in hiring teachers. I can believe they couldn't get their shit together for a deadline set by the candidate. Normal disfunction, not assholic behavior.

Agreed, thanks. Had a bit of a vine of interrupting the person who is breaking up with you to say you’re breaking up with them first. It was the “don’t accept any other offers” part that added a weird, sleazy real estate broker twist to the whole thing.