According to  this article in the New York Times, an attorney in New York filed a discrimination claim against Columbia University accusing the University of discriminating against males.  The suit alleges that by offering women’s studies programs without a corresponding “men’s studies” program, the University is violating the Equal Protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.   The U.S. District Court in New York dismissed the suit on April 23, 2007,  noting that the suit was baseless and frivolous.

As ridiculous as this claim is, it underlines one of the considerations that a potential litigant should consider before filing a discrimination or harassment lawsuit.   As we have discussed previously, every distinction based on a protected class does not give rise to a valid discrimination claim.   For example, for an employment discrimination claim to arise from a distinction or employment decision, the  decision must be based on race, gender or national origin and not on another, non-discriminatory claim.

Mesriani Law Group, the parent company of this blog, has a thriving employment law practice.  When a suit of this nature is filed, it is something that should be addressed, for a number of reasons.  This claim is a perfect illustration of  an attorney taking a vital legal interest and subverting it to his own individual interests.    Our constitution is designed to protect the valid interests of individuals, not to forward personal agendas.  This claim, as ludicrous as it was, serves as a reminder that claims of discrimination should not be made lightly, as improper claims dillute the concept and lessen the ability of those who have been truly wronged to get the recovery they deserve.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later