Kind of ironic that no lawyer is willing to take the case for less than 50% of the winnings, right? I guess the family feels that's unjust!So when you hire an actress or model, they are automatically entitled to 50 percent of the company value. Awesome gig.
ETA: I wonder why they have to represent themselves. It would seem there would be lawyers standing in line to take such an awesome case.
What merit? They hired and paid her it seems. Did they not live up to the contract? What are the legal grounds for the claims?I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.
Yeah...I was wondering the same thing. They were quoting that she was "employed" by Quaker as if it somehow justified their claim. I didn't really see where there was any wrong-doing.What merit? They hired and paid her it seems. Did they not live up to the contract? What are the legal grounds for the claims?I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.
I assume they've waited far too long to have a case here, but everyone wants to pass on their wealth to their future generations that didn't do anything to deserve. It's the backbone of our society.Fat Nick said:I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.
Read that the great grandson is a civil rights activist so my guess this is a quick money grab and he will use the media attention of the suit to highlight the racist aspects of the branding to extract some hush moneyFat Nick said:Yeah...I was wondering the same thing. They were quoting that she was "employed" by Quaker as if it somehow justified their claim. I didn't really see where there was any wrong-doing.jon_mx said:What merit? They hired and paid her it seems. Did they not live up to the contract? What are the legal grounds for the claims?Fat Nick said:I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.
Not sure why. This gives the company a lot of publcity and the claims are outrageously frivolous. What is hush money on a $2 billion suit? I think if they were offered anything under $1 million they would be laughed at and it would only give the public the impression that the case had some merit.Seems like quaker would have been better off giving the family some hush money.
Maybe they don't want a public discussion about why in the hell a brand in 2014 is still using a Mammie archetype celebrating the plantation lifestyle to sell pancake mix? Or maybe that they built the brand by taking advantage of a series of old black lady's from the 1880's to the 1930's? Now, generations of white kids have benefited from that image, while this lady's own children are having to sue for their share.Not sure why. This gives the company a lot of publcity and the claims are outrageously frivolous. What is hush money on a $2 billion suit? I think if they were offered anything under $1 million they would be laughed at and it would only give the public the impression that the case had some merit.Seems like quaker would have been better off giving the family some hush money.
How did they take advantage? It seemed like she stayed an employee for the rest of her life. I would say they treated her right from all we know.Maybe they don't want a public discussion about why in the hell a brand in 2014 is still using a Mammie archetype celebrating the plantation lifestyle to sell pancake mix? Or maybe that they built the brand by taking advantage of a series of old black lady's from the 1880's to the 1930's? Now, generations of white kids have benefited from that image, while this lady's own children are having to sue for their share.Not sure why. This gives the company a lot of publcity and the claims are outrageously frivolous. What is hush money on a $2 billion suit? I think if they were offered anything under $1 million they would be laughed at and it would only give the public the impression that the case had some merit.Seems like quaker would have been better off giving the family some hush money.
I have no idea what these people have a right to, but there are plenty of reasons for Quaker to want to have this go away quietly.
God knows a black lady in the 30's only stayed at a job if she was treated very well and fairly compensated.How did they take advantage? It seemed like she stayed an employee for the rest of her life. I would say they treated her right from all we know.Maybe they don't want a public discussion about why in the hell a brand in 2014 is still using a Mammie archetype celebrating the plantation lifestyle to sell pancake mix? Or maybe that they built the brand by taking advantage of a series of old black lady's from the 1880's to the 1930's? Now, generations of white kids have benefited from that image, while this lady's own children are having to sue for their share.Not sure why. This gives the company a lot of publcity and the claims are outrageously frivolous. What is hush money on a $2 billion suit? I think if they were offered anything under $1 million they would be laughed at and it would only give the public the impression that the case had some merit.Seems like quaker would have been better off giving the family some hush money.
I have no idea what these people have a right to, but there are plenty of reasons for Quaker to want to have this go away quietly.
Maybe it's just because everybody knows she makes some bomb-### pancakes and has nothing to do with celebrating plantation lifestyle. That's how people dressed back then. Look at the Quaker Oats guy himself.Maybe they don't want a public discussion about why in the hell a brand in 2014 is still using a Mammie archetype celebrating the plantation lifestyle to sell pancake mix? Or maybe that they built the brand by taking advantage of a series of old black lady's from the 1880's to the 1930's? Now, generations of white kids have benefited from that image, while this lady's own children are having to sue for their share.
I have no idea what these people have a right to, but there are plenty of reasons for Quaker to want to have this go away quietly.
And the Redskins thread.Mods, please merge with "wrong sperm donor" thread.
Agreed. It's one thing if they figured this out 10-15 years after the fact and asked for a reasonable sum. But to ask for $2B 80 years later with the "victim" long in the grave is just looking for a payday. I don't sympathize at all.Fat Nick said:I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.
Your face should sue Footballguys.Your mom should sue Michellin.