• Home
  • News
  • In Latest Loss for $54M Pants Suit Judge, Fed’l Court Dismisses Termination Claim

Labor & Employment

In Latest Loss for $54M Pants Suit Judge, Fed’l Court Dismisses Termination Claim

Posted Jul 28, 2009 1:57 PM CST
By Martha Neil

It appears that much-publicized litigation brought by an administrative law judge in Washington, D.C., over a dry cleaner's alleged loss of his suit trousers and the jurist's subsequent loss of his job may finally be nearing a conclusion.

After generating international headlines with a May 2008 lawsuit that sought $54 million in damages from a local dry cleaner over his missing trousers, Roy Pearson was not reappointed to a 10-year term as an administrative law judge. And now a federal court has dismissed his wrongful termination claim against the District of Columbia, reports the Washington Post.

Pearson contended that a refusal by the District's Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges to reappoint him violated the first amendment, because it amounted to retaliation against him for expressing his views in the lawsuit and for bringing internal district issues to the attention of D.C. government officials, the newspaper recounts.

But U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle of the District of Columbia disagreed. Characterizing the pants suit as a personal vendetta, she upheld the decision not to reappoint him in a written opinion Thursday and also rejected Pearson's argument that he was not given an adequate opportunity to fight the effective dismissal from his job, according to the Post.

Pearson could not be located by the newspaper for potential comment.

Earlier coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "Will Ex-Judge Press On With $54M Pants Suit Case? Supreme Court Is Last Resort"

Comments

1.

Structuralist
Jul 28, 2009 8:08 PM CST

Maybe the “judge” can get a job in that laundry that he sued!  They’re hiring!!!

Flag this comment

2.

Lee
Jul 29, 2009 10:10 AM CST

Re comment 1:  Actually, Pearson’s oppressive litigation caused the owners of that business to give up and close.

Flag this comment

3.

B. McLeod
Jul 29, 2009 4:10 PM CST

So, this guy wrecks a cleaning business, plus, basically, his own job and life, and spends all this money in years of litigation over a pair of pants??  It just seems like there must be some serious mental health issues.

Flag this comment

4.

P. Bryson
Jul 30, 2009 4:36 AM CST

I bet this judge was one of those clients who says ‘It’s not the money, it’s the principle of the thing.” One of my early supervisors recommended raising your fee substantially any time you hear that, you’ll need compensation for the extra load of nonsense.

Flag this comment

5.

fed up
Jul 30, 2009 9:16 AM CST

This case shows two things.  First, the courts are inefficient at resolving many types of disputes.  Second, a lawyer should never be allowed to represent himself.  It is usually a conflict of interest. (including permissible conflicts).  And it always involves lack of perspective, as in this pants case.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.