The Man In the Grey Flannel Suit
That might be a fitting costume for Roy Pearson tonight. He can go trick or treating as the Man in the Grey Flannel Suit -- or even better, in black robes, as a Judge. Either way, he'll be dressed up as something he's not. And now -- he definitely has plenty of time on his hands.
Not surprisingly, Pearson, the infamous DC Administrative Law Judge who got his pants in a twist over a pair of misplaced pants at his dry cleaners, lost his job yesterday. See Lose Some, Win Some. The Washington Post reports on the latest episode in this story in Judge Who Lost Pant Suit Loses Job:
Roy L. Pearson Jr., the administrative law judge who lost his $54 million lawsuit against a Northeast Washington dry cleaner, lost his job yesterday and was ordered to vacate his office, sources said.
Pearson, 57, who had served as a judge for two years, was up for a 10-year term at the Office of Administrative Hearings, but a judicial committee last week voted against reappointing him.
The panel had a seven-page letter hand-delivered to Pearson about 3:30 p.m., directing him to leave his office by 5 p.m. Pearson's term ended in May, at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners. Since then, he has remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney adviser.
Obviously the Committee was concerned about his reaction to the news, so wanted to be sure that he had a hasty exit, before he had an opportunity to do any damage. That may seem a little harsh, but based upon this guys conduct throughout this matter, it is not an unreasonable concern.
I'm sure they are also being extra cautious because they expect that this won't be the end of the story. Litigious is this man's middle name. I (along with anyone else who has followed this story) would be shocked if he didn't end up suing over the lost of his job. In anticipation of his claims, the Committee's decision to can the man was not premised on his abuse of the court processes with the dry cleaner case:
A source familiar with the committee's meetings said Pearson's lawsuit played little role in the decision not to reappoint him.
Instead, the committee said it had reviewed Pearson's judicial decisions and audiotapes of proceedings over which he had presided and found he did not demonstrate "appropriate judgment and judicial temperament," according a source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.
Sources said Pearson also was criticized for displaying a "combative" nature with supervisors and colleagues and for failing to comply with policies in drafting opinions.
For earlier posts on this story, see Hell Hath No Fury . . ., No Pants, No Job, and The Appeal of the Pantload.
On an unrelated note, Verizon had its third visit to the house today to try to fix my phone/DSL problems. So far, looks like I'm back on-line.
No comments:
Post a Comment