Hit the Road Jack... er... Roy

Remember Judge Roy L. Pearson? Sure you do. He's the DC judge who made headlines around the nation when he famously (or infamously) sued a dry-cleaning shop for false advertising. According to his lawsuit, he felt that the store had not lived up to the 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' sign hanging in the window and because of mental anguish and torture, he ended up suing the store for approximately $54 million which would cover the costs of various things including his renting of a car to go across town to get his pants cleaned at another store. Well, after the case was most obviously dismissed in court, Pearson is making the news again. No he's not suing the court system for not living up to it's motto of 'Justice is Blind' but he could have.

No, in this case Pearson has made the news again because he was officially removed from his post as a judge by the city council. It didn't come as a surprise to many people who had been following the case but it was a long time coming. The fact that Pearson was up for an extension of his tenure during the case was probably not beneficial. At the time, there was discussion going on over whether or not his case in court should have any bearing on whether he keeps his job or not. In all fairness, it shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever on his ability to do his job but in this case, how can it not? A judge is usually meant to have some modicum of impartiality in his manner to prove that he can try to live up to the motto of the legal system.

Still, in the case of Pearson, his case was making headlines across the nation as was the fact that he was up for extension in his post. Anyone would be hard pressed not to bring up the side-by-side comparison of his actions as a private citizen versus his actions as a judge. I think it's only fair that a comparison be drawn simply because it has a direct bearing on his possible conduct in court. For the sake of arguement, let's say someone was an executive within a major corporation which deals with financial reporting and auditing (Arthur Andersen ring a bell?) and let's say that this executive is sued for falsifying his personal tax records and other sorts of financial chicanery, if his company catches wind of it, there is likely to be some delving into whether or not this type of action carried over into his office work as well won't it? Is it wrong to do so?

Like it or not, someone in this type of position is going to undergo scrutiny in such matters. No matter how impartial or fair we attempt to be, there is always going to be some bias that creeps into someone's judgement over whether or not someone is or isn't capable of performing their job ably. Go into most any job interview these days and on the questionaires you usually fill out there are sections which query whether or not you are involved in organizations or groups plotting to overthrow the government. Now while this may be a personal question, it certainly has bearing on whether or not you would be seen as a team player or an anarchist wouldn't it?

Pearson's suit (pardon the pun) could have been settled amicably and with less attention had he not gone and sued for so much over a pair of pants. If one reads the details on how he arrived at a total cost of $54 million (down from the original $63 million) one cannot fault his logic but could arrive at the conclusion that he is looking to milk as much money out of one family business as he possibly can. Pearson has the right to sue for the apparent loss of his pants and the failure of the dry cleaning company to properly recompense him (as he claimed) but by blowing the case out of proportion he not only hurt himself but the dry cleaners as well (the expenses incurred during the case forced them to close the location Pearson had visited). There is a chance that Pearson's dismissal could be overturned but the likelihood of that is very slim. Maybe it has to do with the fact that he's still appealing the original decision to dismiss his case.