Whenever Roy Pearson, Jr. is in the news, it's like seeing an old friend. At least, if you have an old friend who you have frequently ridiculed in front of thousands of people, it would be like that.
When we last saw Roy, in July 2009, he was losing his wrongful-termination case against the District of Columbia, his former boss, and others, a case he filed after he was not reappointed to another term as a D.C. administrative law judge. See "Judge Who Lost Pants Loses Another Suit," Lowering the Bar (July 31, 2009). The decision not to reappoint him may or may not have had something to do with Pearson's valiant years-long battle with his dry cleaners over an allegedly lost pair of pants, which made national headlines largely due to Pearson's demand for 65 million dollars in compensation. He always insisted it was not about the pants, and later reduced his demand to $54 million, apparently in order to make that point. See "Judge Drops Pants; Suit Still On," Lowering the Bar (June 6, 2007). He lost anyway.
But a loss has never deterred Roy Pearson, Jr., and the more he loses the more not-deterred he seems to be. Today's report involves his appeal in the wrongful-termination case, which was dismissed by the lower court. That is not going to change on appeal, an opinion that I think is reinforced by the D.C. Circuit's cancellation of the scheduled oral argument, which was to have taken place tomorrow (May 11). The court said it had decided that oral argument in the matter was unnecessary, and that it would decide the appeal based on the briefs. This is generally a bad sign for the party with the weaker argument, which in this case, as in pretty much every case, is Roy Pearson.
It is unclear whether Pearson will pursue further appeals, to the U.S. Supreme Court or, as I keep hoping we will see him try one day, to the International Court of Justice, where he might finally get a fair hearing. Frankly, although he has provided a lot of great material over the years, I would have mixed emotions about seeing him continue, as there is probably a limit on the number of decent (if childish) pants-based headlines I can generate.
Link: National Law Journal