Ye olde lawsuit challengin' University o' California's D.E.I. statements be thrown to Davy Jones' locker!
2024-01-13
Arrr! A federal judge be sayin' that the plaintiff, who be claimin' that them there diversity statements be a "functional loyalty oath," be havin' no standin'. Walk the plank, ye landlubber!
Avast mateys! Listen close as I weave ye a tale of legal matters, pirates style! 'Twas a time in recent days when a federal judge had to make a ruling, and arrgh, it be a mighty peculiar case indeed. The plaintiff, ye see, had a bone to pick with them diversity statements, claimin' they be some sort of "functional loyalty oath," whatever that means.But alas, the judge be havin' none of it! In the eyes of the court, this scurvy dog of a plaintiff did not have what we pirates call "standing." Arrgh, standing be a fancy way of sayin' he didn't have the right to bring forth this here claim. Ye see, bein' a pirate myself, I oughta explain it like this: if ye be havin' no business in a fight, ye better keep yer trap shut!
Now, mateys, let's delve into the nitty-gritty of this legal jargon. The plaintiff, in his pirate-y wisdom, argued that these diversity statements be like a sworn oath of loyalty, but to what or whom, ye may ask? Well, that be a question no one could answer, not even the plaintiff himself! The judge, wise as an old sea dog, saw straight through this argument.
So there ye have it, me hearties! The judge gave his verdict in favor of the defendants, leavin' the plaintiff to walk the plank, so to speak. Ye can almost hear the sound of disappointment in the plaintiff's voice, as he be hopin' for a different outcome.
But fear not, dear readers! This be no story of despair. Instead, let it serve as a lesson to all ye landlubbers out there: don't be makin' claims without a solid foundation, lest ye find yerself drownin' in the sea of legal jargon. Take heed, me hearties, and be careful where ye set sail!