Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Whoa! I just had a disturbing realization.

When the idiots fired Noa, they shot themselves in the foot epically.

Kinda hard to stand up for Mutant Rights when you aren't practicing what you preach!
Not sure the firm is particularly interested in standing up as a bastion of Mutant Rights. Doing so is probably not necessary or even necessarily helpful for the appeal.
 
The entire case was built on the fact that the defendant was a mutant menace.
You do recall that the firm didn't have a choice in the matter?
"But much as I'd wish it, I'm not the only decider. Lewin has a voice, Loeb has a voice, and our largest clients each have their own voices. And after you got outed on live TV?" Sam gestured at my horns and scales, at which I couldn't help but run my fingers over the bone-white patch on the back of one of my hands. "We got calls from some of the firm's biggest clients. I'm sure you can imagine what was said, Noa."

"I walk or they do?" I guessed, eyeing the lone folder on Lieberman's desk.
We don't know what Lewin or Loeb's opinions were but the Firm's biggest long-term clients (you know, the guys with lots and lots of money who's partonage helps keep the Firm in the black?) said get rid of Noa or they pull out.
Not to mention, from what I understand, while firms like this can specialize in various types of laws etc; they always need to (at least appear) as impartial as possible.

The Daily Bugle (and other papers) on the other hand does has the option of airing their opinion on the situation. And the Bugle isn't so much 'pro-mutant' as 'pro-rights'.
 
Then at the very least the firm should've made it plain that kicking her out on her backside wasn't their idea.

Kinda undercuts their whole freaking position otherwise.
 
The fact that Noa's mentor had to fight to get her a good deal rather than all the senior partners working together to give her a fair one does offer some implications, yes.
Doesn't change the fact that firing the mutant lawyer for being a mutant makes them look bad.

I foresee a lost wages lawsuit in the futures of the other two partners and blackmail charges against those clients.
 
Doesn't change the fact that firing the mutant lawyer for being a mutant makes them look bad.

I foresee a lost wages lawsuit in the futures of the other two partners and blackmail charges against those clients.
Probably just a little bit of bad PR that may even be good from the PoV of mutant haters, nothing so dramatic.
 
Kinda undercuts their whole freaking position otherwise.
The firm doesn't have a position; that's the point.
I foresee a lost wages lawsuit in the futures of the other two partners and blackmail charges against those clients.
In order for Sam to get Noa what he did (pay, good , she's bared from filing any charges against the partners/company.
"Bonus pay equal to your share of a generous estimate of what the legal fees would have been, had the Allerdyce case not been pro bono," he said as I scanned the document. "Additional pay equaling the anticipated salary accrued for the expected duration of the appeal and a new trial, and estimated legal fees for both. A release stating that any clients you brought into the firm or served as lead attorney for could follow you to your next firm with no consequence or additional fees paid to this one, so long as no new conflicts of interest prevent it. And your end of year bonus, paid now."

I read the terms, feeling my heart sink as I did. Lewin and Loeb had been careful; this severance agreement also waived any current or future causes of action, including any that did not yet exist, against the firm. Furthermore, it heavily implied that if I didn't sign the agreement, that LL&L could keep me from ever working as an attorney in New York again.

As for the clients, they were perfectly within their rights to say 'we don't want to retain your services any more given X'. The firm and Noa wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
 
Doesn't change the fact that firing the mutant lawyer for being a mutant makes them look bad.

I foresee a lost wages lawsuit in the futures of the other two partners and blackmail charges against those clients.

This isn't 2020's USA. This is pre 1990's USA.

And Noa is up against some of the topmost lawyers in the city, some very big companies, and the lawyers they employ, specializing in this sort of legal action.


Right now, LL&L can pretend they didn't have Noa as an employee and do the courteous thing. If Noa goes after their misconduct she burns a ton of good will and will produce much ill intent towards her, when she's only just about starting as a lawyer on her own when she is both a woman (and you know women can't do a difficult job like lawyering right) and a mutant (and if you thought women were discriminated against, mutants have it worse).

Oh, and she's a lesbian. That's not going to help. At all.

You know how St. John got screwed with the jury in a criminal trial, stacked to the point that for a trial concluding result you actually need 12 people agree on guilt or not guilt? Noa would not be nearly that lucky. She'd be left with the ashes of a legal career strangled in the crib, and massive debts as no doubt the finding would be that she has to pay the legal fees of her opponent.
 
I foresee a lost wages lawsuit in the futures of the other two partners and blackmail charges against those clients.
There is no leg to stand on for any of those issues. No lost wages with the agreement going above and beyond what Noa was actually owed by the firm. She isn't being fired, she is being "let go" with severance and no overt ill will merely a "we don't want you to stop working in this field, you just don't work here."

And businesses can legally decide who they will and will not work with for any reason and for no reason at all. Pulling out of a business deal because you don't like someone working at the company isn't illegal, much like Coca-Cola pulling out of the Washington Football Team's sponsorship until they changed their name wasn't blackmail.

Noa's only potential legal recourse is based on whether Mutants are considered covered by anti-discrimination laws, and whether anyone goes out of their way to say something bad about her abilities isn't he field to prospective employers.

This exit meeting however? The only reason it's not boilerplate is the issue of the other senior partners needing to be cajoled into agreeing to the copper-parachute for Noa
 
.....

You mean to tell me that those crooks made her sign a piece of paper saying that they have the right to screw her over whenever they please?
 
You mean to tell me that those crooks made her sign a piece of paper saying that they have the right to screw her over whenever they please?
:facepalm:
No. I quoted the exact passage eariler but here is the breakdown.
If she signs, Noa gets this:
1: Bonus pay equal to Noa's share of a generous estimate of what the legal fees would have been, had the Allerdyce case not been pro bono. (Money)
2: Additional pay equaling the anticipated salary accrued for the expected duration of the appeal and a new trial, and estimated legal fees for both. (Money)
3: A release stating that any clients Noa brought into the firm or served as lead attorney for could follow her to her next firm with no consequence or additional fees paid to this one, so long as no new conflicts of interest prevent it. (Any clients that like her can shift to using her as an attorney with no penalty)
4: End of year bonus, paid now. (money)

In exchange for this Noa must accept:
1: Severance agreement also waived any current or future causes of action, including any that did not yet exist, against the firm. (Noa can't sue the firm for whatever in the aftermath).
2: Implied that if Noa doesn't sign the agreement, that LL&L could keep her from ever working as an attorney in New York again. (Use soft power and contacts to screw her over if she doesn't agree to not try and screw them over).
 
Last edited:
I disagree quite strongly.

The entire case was built on the fact that the defendant was a mutant menace.
But their goal is to win the case, not the greater social argument. They're lawyers, not politicians. And being a "mutant menace" is not a crime, let alone the crime the client was charged with, so they don't have to address that at all except insofar as they can use it to attack the original case.
 
Yeah... The firm gets to screw her over whenever they please.

That would be an unconsciable interpretation of the agreement and get the thing dismantled in court as such.

All it says is 'you are not allowed to sue the company for things that happened while you were employed by us, including our decision to stop employing you'. Trying to ruleslawyer that to 'you cannot sue us for later misconduct' is not going to fly.
 
Trying to ruleslawyer that to 'you cannot sue us for later misconduct' is not going to fly.
That's exactly what the agreement says!

But.... Let's drop this topic okay?

Anyone else find it a bit of an odd coincidence that Erik/Max/he-who-has-too-many-dang-names is an old friend of her family?
 
That's exactly what the agreement says!

But.... Let's drop this topic okay?

Anyone else find it a bit of an odd coincidence that Erik/Max/he-who-has-too-many-dang-names is an old friend of her family?
Given her father was at the same camp, no.

From a doyalist perspective, it's a bit convenient, but not unreasonably so, given the community we're talking about. The only part that's a noteworthy coincidence is that he'd suddenly show up this year, and not once during the rest of her life. However, his reaction does make it seem like a genuinely unexpected coincidence.
 
what i want to know is what's going to happen to that Judge for his OBVIOUS misconduct? becuase what he did by denying the mistrial and forcing it to go on for political reasons? that should be enough for someone to get him. Hell even outside and Appeal the St. Johns could file a complaint with a higher court and it would probably go through becuase one thing the higher courts hate? anything that makes the System look bad.
 
what i want to know is what's going to happen to that Judge for his OBVIOUS misconduct? becuase what he did by denying the mistrial and forcing it to go on for political reasons? that should be enough for someone to get him. Hell even outside and Appeal the St. Johns could file a complaint with a higher court and it would probably go through becuase one thing the higher courts hate? anything that makes the System look bad.
For his poor behavior? Nothing and Nada. He's an elected judge.

For being implicitly called a Nazi by Captain America while JJJ was listening?
So long as someone runs against him, he'll probably loose his job.
 
Last edited:
For his poor behavior? Nothing and Nada. He's an elected judge.

For being implicitly called a Nazi by Captain America while JJJ was listening?
So long as someone runs against him, he'll probably loose his job.
I'm pretty sure New York doesn't elect judges. While his career prospects are likely still tied to electoral politics to some extent, it's not as direct and simple as him being voted out or not.
 
For his poor behavior? Nothing and Nada. He's an elected judge.

For being implicitly called a Nazi by Captain America while JJJ was listening?
So long as someone runs against him, he'll probably loose his job.

I'm pretty sure New York doesn't elect judges. While his career prospects are likely still tied to electoral politics to some extent, it's not as direct and simple as him being voted out or not.

Unfortunately, as we're likely to see with Young, even elections and a sane electorate may not suffice.

"You know what I wanna know?" One of the other women in the locker room, a brunette with her hair pulled into a messy bun, asked as she stood there half-dressed, hands on her hips and facing the alcove we kept the radio in. "How in the hell is he still leading the polls? Actually, no, how is he even still in the running at all?" At this, she turned to face me, her eyes pointed somewhere on the floor just behind me.

Specifically, she stared at the tip of my tail.

"You've got a lot to learn, Casey," said another woman with brown hair in a short pixie-cut, tossing Casey a water bottle as she crossed back over to her locker to get her skate socks. "Young's leading, yeah, but he's also got a record number of challengers."

Young is leading in the poles, but has a large number of challengers, which means public sentiment is probably against him. Unfortunately, that sentiment is divided between multiple alternatives, while the bigoted factions is likely united behind him. If his opponents don't start dropping out, so their supporters can coalesce behind a single candidate, he's likely to win with a minority of the vote. This is a very well known failure state for First Past the Post voting systems (i.e. what we use).

While that could lead to an interesting what-if scenario, where Marvel New York adopts a more representative system decades early, I suspect that's not quite the thicket of weeds October Daye is planning to get into. I'd be pleasantly surprised if he is, but I'm also a massive nerd. Instead, I think we're going to see both Young and the judge evade justice, for the time being.
 
Back
Top