“Sem” is one of the people who comment regularly on this blog.
Today, he posted a comment that read in part,
“One “poster” in particular knows from experience that when a person enters the courtroom half-cocked, that person will experience the real meaning of the double edged sword.
“First of all a plaintiff must respond to Affirmative Defenses. Secondly, the only acceptable way to do so is with Opposing Points and Authorities. Thirdly, it is the very points of Law (precedence) that is being argued:
“McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), was an early substantive ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. (Read closely…BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK).”
I’m not sure that I clearly understood Sem’s comment. Initially, I thought he was advocating “affirmative defenses”. In retrospect, I suspect he wasn’t advocating so much as attempting to explain something about the burden-shifting nature of “affirmative defenses”.
Whatever his intended meaning, I started to pen a brief comment in response. But my comment grew so large, that I decided to post it as the following article:
Read the rest of this entry »