eHarmony Settles Lawsuit

The popular eHarmony online dating service will have to do more to welcome gays and lesbians to its site, under a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit announced Tuesday.

The Pasadena company, which says it uses a scientifically developed questionnaire to help people find "relationships that last," didn't offer gay, lesbian and bisexual matchmaking services on its primary Web site, eHarmony.com, until last spring.

As a result of a 2008 settlement with the state of New Jersey, which sued the company for discrimination, men and women seeking same-sex matches were redirected from eHarmony to an affiliate Web site, Compatiblepartners.net.

A separate class-action civil rights lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles in 2007, saying that eHarmony violated California law barring businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

The proposed settlement would require eHarmony to display its gay and lesbian dating services more prominently.

Thoughts? I remember when this came up in 2008, but I haven't followed it very closely since then.

I thought this was why we had Craiglist? Did I miss something?

Stupid.

Without regard to the merit of the cases, I find it interesting that people would think lawsuit instead of business opportunity.

My thoughts are it is ridiculous, no more ridiculous than me suing my wife's gynecologist for not providing services to men. If a dating service wants to set up men with women, or women with men, there is nothing to stop gay people from using it, it just won't be helfpul to them. Equal rights and equal protection laws doesn't necessarily mean special access to services that the service provider doesn't believe it can provide adequately. This is completely different than diners that refused access to minorities in the Jim Crow era, you can serve food to a minority just as easy as you can to a non-minority, examining heterosexual relationships and purporting to be an expert (at least to the point that you believe you can charge your services) doesn't mean that you have the same expertise in examining homosexual relationships.

It is stuff like this that I think actually sets back the gay rights movement as it shows the fringe believes more in their political movement than it does in non-discrimination, there is nothing stopping anyone that setting up a website that provides a service to set up men with other men, and it would be equally ridiculous for a heterosexual man to sue that hypothetical service if it doesn't provide a service to set him up with a woman.

it sounds like they redirected them to a partner site that would provide the services tey gheyz were looking for...I don't get what they did wrong

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

This was obviously a politically motivated suit that had zip to do with any opportunities to find sites that provide gay/lesbian matchmaking services.

You don't like that a business isn't doing what you want -- go to their competitor and help put them out of business.

^^^ Good points, MB!

I loved living in Ca., but everybody knows that those people are nuts! LOL

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: My thoughts are it is ridiculous, no more ridiculous than me suing my wife's gynecologist for not providing services to men. If a dating service wants to set up men with women, or women with men, there is nothing to stop gay people from using it, it just won't be helfpul to them. Equal rights and equal protection laws doesn't necessarily mean special access to services that the service provider doesn't believe it can provide adequately.

This. Can I sue an oil change place for not changing my tires?

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: no more ridiculous than me suing my wife's gynecologist for not providing services to men.

LMAO!!

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: My thoughts are it is ridiculous, no more ridiculous than me suing my wife's gynecologist for not providing services to men. If a dating service wants to set up men with women, or women with men, there is nothing to stop gay people from using it, it just won't be helfpul to them. Equal rights and equal protection laws doesn't necessarily mean special access to services that the service provider doesn't believe it can provide adequately. This is completely different than diners that refused access to minorities in the Jim Crow era, you can serve food to a minority just as easy as you can to a non-minority, examining heterosexual relationships and purporting to be an expert (at least to the point that you believe you can charge your services) doesn't mean that you have the same expertise in examining homosexual relationships.

It is stuff like this that I think actually sets back the gay rights movement as it shows the fringe believes more in their political movement than it does in non-discrimination, there is nothing stopping anyone that setting up a website that provides a service to set up men with other men, and it would be equally ridiculous for a heterosexual man to sue that hypothetical service if it doesn't provide a service to set him up with a woman.

Agree with all of this. So pretty much I got a solid case against blacksinglesconnection.com, olderpersonals.net, and gayemosingles.com because none of those cater to my preferences and if they are going to play matchmaker, they have to include straight, white, middle-age, not-douchebaggeyemo dudes.

queencitybuckeye wrote: Without regard to the merit of the cases, I find it interesting that people would think lawsuit instead of business opportunity.

This is a good point. Instead of complaining and suing, if there were really a desire for online gay matchmaking other than Craigslist, someone could've made a fortune. The lack of anyone wanting to invest in that suggests to me that there isn't much of a market.

There is a pretty big market for it, google "gay dating" and you'll get a bunch of links, which is why IMO this lawsuit (i) was politically motivated and (ii) could potentially be counterproductive if the real and sincere advocates want to extend sexual orientation as a protected class in other jurisdictions. This lawsuit and settlement is ammunition for those that advocate against that extension as they'll argue it will encourage frivolous lawsuits/expensive settlements. I imagine eHarmony figured the fight wasn't worth it, especially in California, from what I understand they didn't admit any wrongdoing.

derek bomar wrote: it sounds like they redirected them to a partner site that would provide the services tey gheyz were looking for...I don't get what they did wrong

Ugh, it makes no sense, does it?

Something similar happened to my wife's cousin and her husband. They offered to help a same sex couple find an alternative that could better serve their own ceremonial needs.

Instead, the couple sued them for not doing the ceremony themselves.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

This was obviously a politically motivated suit that had zip to do with any opportunities to find sites that provide gay/lesbian matchmaking services.

You don't like that a business isn't doing what you want -- go to their competitor and help put them out of business.

Or, hell, start your OWN site and cater to it. Don't just go to their competition. BECOME their competition.

enigmaax wrote: Agree with all of this. So pretty much I got a solid case against blacksinglesconnection.com, olderpersonals.net, and gayemosingles.com because none of those cater to my preferences and if they are going to play matchmaker, they have to include straight, white, middle-age, not-douchebaggeyemo dudes.

Now, I'm no proponent of frivolous lawsuits, but I would LOVE to see someone actually pursue such a lawsuit.

fan_from_texas wrote: This is a good point. Instead of complaining and suing, if there were really a desire for online gay matchmaking other than Craigslist, someone could've made a fortune. The lack of anyone wanting to invest in that suggests to me that there isn't much of a market.

Or those who could be taking advantage of such a market are too blinded by their eagerness to make each instance of this a litigious issue.

Personally, I am a proponent of gay couples having EQUAL rights under the state (even if that includes a lack of recognition by the state). This case is not in support of equal rights. If anything, it is the opposite.

Now, if a dating site wants to cater to gay couples, it is permitted, but a company like eHarmony is not allowed to cater specifically to heterosexual couples?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees a problem with this.

queencitybuckeye wrote: Without regard to the merit of the cases, I find it interesting that people would think lawsuit instead of business opportunity.

iclfan2 wrote:
This. Can I sue an oil change place for not changing my tires?

I like both of these posts. I'm not sure how these particular sites should have to serve all groups.

Even if EHarmony would win, it can be expensive to fight a lawsuit that might drag on for years (as it already has). I assume it's cheaper for them to set up a site (basically porting over their already-existing software) than to fight this for years.

"(basically porting over their already-existing software)"

I haven't followed this case that closely, but from what I understand it was the proprietary information that eHarmony claimed could not easily be ported over, that is, in comparison to other "dating" sites their research and algorithms included more detailed and extensive research that spanned over decades studying successful male-female relationships and marriages. I also understand that eHarmony is a "premium" service that is a lot more expensive than their peers, although I could be wrong about this. So essentially, the lawsuit, if successful, would in eHarmony's view force them to engage in a service that it didn't believe it was qualified to do, or even worse be forced to construct research and algorithms over the same period with same sex relationships.

To make another analogy, it would be as if a child psychologist that has spent her life and career studying pre-pubescent behavioral development of girls, became an expert in the field and offered her services to the general public to treat behavioral disorders in girls was subject to a lawsuit by parents of a boy that expected her to offer the same services to their child, notwithstanding that the psychologist might not even be qualified to provide those services.

Sometimes timing is everything!

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/01/28/exclusive-cbs-limbo-air-gay-dating-site-ad-super-bowl/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fentertainment+%2528Text+-+Entertainment%2529

fan_from_texas wrote: Even if EHarmony would win, it can be expensive to fight a lawsuit that might drag on for years (as it already has). I assume it's cheaper for them to set up a site (basically porting over their already-existing software) than to fight this for years.

This is what I hate about our civil justice system. These "slip and fall" lawyers basically are able to shake these groups down for cash with the threat of dragging them through court at a greater cost. To me this is the moral equivelent to extortion. Only legal.

I would be in favor of some sort of "loser pays" law, which would hold the plantiff and his legal team liable in some way to compensate the defendent for his legal expense.

majorspark wrote: This is what I hate about our civil justice system. These "slip and fall" lawyers basically are able to shake these groups down for cash with the threat of dragging them through court at a greater cost. To me this is the moral equivelent to extortion. Only legal.

I would be in favor of some sort of "loser pays" law, which would hold the plantiff and his legal team liable in some way to compensate the defendent for his legal expense.

I believe England already does that. The problem is that it starts to affect access to justice. Legal fees are already very expensive, and if you knew you had to pay a corporation's fees if you lost . . . there's no way John Q. Public will be suing. It would massively reduce lawsuits, but it would also create a situation where only the rich could sue. That's a big trade-off.

We already have sanctions (including costs) for frivolous lawsuits, though I don't think they're often (ever?) imposed. Perhaps a litigator would have a better idea.

fan_from_texas wrote:

majorspark wrote: This is what I hate about our civil justice system. These "slip and fall" lawyers basically are able to shake these groups down for cash with the threat of dragging them through court at a greater cost. To me this is the moral equivelent to extortion. Only legal.

I would be in favor of some sort of "loser pays" law, which would hold the plantiff and his legal team liable in some way to compensate the defendent for his legal expense.

I believe England already does that. The problem is that it starts to affect access to justice. Legal fees are already very expensive, and if you knew you had to pay a corporation's fees if you lost . . . there's no way John Q. Public will be suing. It would massively reduce lawsuits, but it would also create a situation where only the rich could sue. That's a big trade-off.

We already have sanctions (including costs) for frivolous lawsuits, though I don't think they're often (ever?) imposed. Perhaps a litigator would have a better idea.

I agree that is what I meant by "some sort". I realize JQ Public would not attempt suit if they knew it could cost them everything. I think a reasonble loser fee could be implemented. One that would discourage frivolous shakedowns, but not impose to great a cost to JQ Public.

I was not aware of sactions for frivolous suits. It would be interesting to know the details. Who is responsible? Who defines "frivolous"? Why are they not enforced.

I'm fuzzy on the FRCP, but I believe it's Rule 11. There's only a minimal threshold to meet to avoid the "frivolous" label. I don't think there are that many "frivolous" suits--there are certainly many that lose or settle, but that doesn't mean they're frivolous. In my mind, frivolous denotes filing suit without any grounds, as opposed to filing suit when you're fighting an uphill battle.

majorspark typically it is the plaintiff's attorney that gets sanctioned, whether it is a fine, a suspension of license, a reprimand or whatever. There are instances when the plaintiff may face disciplinary action, but that is usually if the plaintiff and the representing attorney are one and the same such as an advocacy group or an administrative body, but I would imagine in those instances the penalties are light.

I take a middle ground on the issue, I don't buy in to the ATLA-esque idea that Rule 11 is by itself satisfactory to prohibit all abuses of the system as I've seen firsthand how companies reserve funds just to get rid of claims that simply aren't worth fighting, perhaps a way to control abuse is to control costs.

To that point, this story came out today:

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/01/kl_gates_overlawyers.php#more

This is unbelievably ridiculous. This is why "BIGLAW" firms should scale back or get rid of estate practices. A $1.2M estate isn't that large, and the clients probably should not have retained this firm, but the firm has a professional duty to educate the client about the cost, particularly in an emotionally charged representation. I can't imagine charging a client $800,000 representing them in a $1.2M capital raise, I can't imagine charging $40,000 for a $1.2M capital raise.

I think most BIGLAW firms are cutting estate practices anyway (along with labor & employment and other low fee/low leverage practices). It's virtually impossible to make partner in our T&E practice here, since it's basically reverse-leveraged. I can't imagine billing $800k for a $1.2 million estate--unbelievable.

There was a study that came out a year or two ago that looked at the relative value of BIGLAW practices. To no one's surprise, T&E and L&E were at the bottom of the list, along with other service practices like environmental and certain regulatory. White-collar and M&A were at the top.

That's an outrageous fee. FWIW, aside from Rule 11, Ohio also has the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct under which attorneys can be disciplined. It's also important to point out that most people who have a prima facie case actually don't sue. People hear about a lawsuit here and there on the news and think "everybody's lawsuit happy" but that doesn't really seem to be true IMO. It's kind of like how local news channels over emphasize on crime and people think that there is much more crime than there actually is.

But IMO, if we didn't have a mere "notice pleading" system, people would have a lot bigger complaints than they already have about the legal system.