60 is the new 20: Musician Suing for Age Bias Says Judge is Too Old.
14 replies, posted
[release][table][tr][td][/td][td]
[h2]Musician suing for age bias says his 88-year-old judge is too old to preside, 'unable to function'[/h2]
A 60-year-old Manhattan musician at the center of an age discrimination lawsuit is trying to get the judge handling his case booted - because he's too old.
Violinist Martin Stoner admits he sounds like a big hypocrite for knocking 88-year-old Manhattan Federal Judge Robert Patterson as "slow-witted and unable to function."
But Stoner insists his fight against ageism is too important to allow the hard-of-hearing jurist to foul it up.
"Judge Patterson could barely see unless he put his face almost on top of a document," Stoner wrote in a judicial complaint.
The suit was filed in March after Stoner was rejected from a competition run by the not-for-profit Young Concert Artists and limited to musicians a third his age.
The case took its bizarre twist when it ended up in the hands ofPatterson, who graduated from Columbia Law School a year before Stoner was born.
Things between the aging judge and the plaintiff got off to a rocky start when Patterson tossed the case Oct. 7 after finding mistakes in Stoner's court briefs.
Stoner counters that the old-school judge is biased against him because he's representing himself, and he has asked for a new judge.
"Judge Patterson should be removed from the bench, both because of his mental and physical limitations," Stoner wrote in the judicial complaint, obtained by the Daily News. "With all due respect, he may have been a very learned jurist in his day."
Patterson, who earned a bachelor's degree from Harvard College at the end of World War II, wears a hearing aid but still orders lawyers to speak up while cupping a hand to his ear.
"I know it sounds kind of like hypocrisy," said Stoner, who last year lost his gig with the New York City Ballet orchestra after 25 years. "I asked the judge to recuse himself on the grounds that he's too old. Isn't that ironic?"
Patterson refused to comment, but his defenders claim he's sharp as a tack. When another judge fellill two years ago, Patterson stepped in midtrial, ripped through a 2,282-page legal transcript in a single weekend and handled the case with aplomb, Manhattan Federal Court Chief Judge Loretta Preska told the New York Law Journal.
Despite the Young Concert Artists competition's focus on budding musicians, director Susan Wadsworth allowed Stoner to play in the first round, thinking she might recommend him to another agency. She said his performance was less than stellar.
"The whole thing is pretty comical," said Wadsworth, adding that Stoner's attempt to compete was like an adult repeating the first grade because "your handwriting isn't good enough."
As for Stoner's crusade against Patterson, Wadsworth laughed and said, "That's pretty funny."
[/td][td][/td][/tr][/table][/release]
This...this is just stupid.
[URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/10/24/2011-10-24_youre_too_old_musician_suing_for_age_bias_sez_his_88yrold_judge_unable_to_functi.html?r=topnews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+nydnrss/home+(Home)&ut"]Sourcey[/URL]
If it is really affecting his performance it should be taken into consideration. Especially in a legal environment. The article makes it seems like that is the case, althought it later says that he is the sharpest judge around.
I'm not saying it's because he is old, I'm merely basing it off of whether not he can effectively and reliably do his job. Of course, I do think the case is going to be thrown out no matter what he tries to do. What a stupid reason to sue.
Judges are expected to step down if they consider themselves too old to perform their job. It's like a courtesy to society.
They don't step-down unless they want to, their terms are for life.
I have the same view on politics with regards to a persons age. At most a person should be like 75 if they're going to be handling that kind of job.
"[b]Young[/b] Concert Artists wouldn't take me because I'm 60 years old clearly this is illegal"
[QUOTE=cccritical;32949376]"[b]Young[/b] Concert Artists wouldn't take me because I'm 60 years old clearly this is illegal"[/QUOTE]
Then he goes and says a judge can't do his job because he's too old.
This sounds like some convoluted story in an Onion article lol
I wish we could smack people for being dumbshits.
MAKE SURE YOU READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU POST, it's not nearly as bad as the title makes it sound. The guy has a legitimate reason to be making these claims.
[quote]
Martin Stoner
[/quote]
What is it with these names lately?
[QUOTE=Schmaaa;32950271]MAKE SURE YOU READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU POST, it's not nearly as bad as the title makes it sound. The guy has a legitimate reason to be making these claims.[/QUOTE]
...Are you serious? He has no reason to be making those claims. He's just an old man bitching because he's old and not allowed to enter a competition for young people. And he wants a different judge because the current judge is old and not "young" like he is.
[QUOTE=Zet;32951417]...Are you serious? He has no reason to be making those claims. He's just an old man bitching because he's old and not allowed to enter a competition for young people. And he wants a different judge because the current judge is old and not "young" like he is.[/QUOTE]
[quote]
But Stoner insists his fight against ageism is too important to allow the [B]hard-of-hearing[/B] jurist to foul it up.
...
[B]"Judge Patterson could barely see unless he put his face almost on top of a document,"[/B] Stoner wrote in a judicial complaint.
...
Patterson, who earned a bachelor's degree from Harvard College at the end of World War II, [B]wears a hearing aid but still orders lawyers to speak up while cupping a hand to his ear.[/B]
[/quote]
How do you expect a judge to be competent if he can barely hear or read testimony and legal documents?
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;32954348]How do you expect a judge to be competent if he can barely hear or read testimony and legal documents?[/QUOTE]
even if his hearing and eyesight isn't as good as it used to be, as long as he can still do the job there's no reason to replace him.
[QUOTE=Zet;32954543]even if his hearing and eyesight isn't as good as it used to be, as long as he can still do the job there's no reason to replace him.[/QUOTE]
I'm no expert on law but I'm fairly sure that judges need to actually be able to experience the prosecuting and defense arguments. I don't know though, maybe Law & Order has been lying to me.
Once you're 88 years old you really shouldn't be working as a judge. Not only sight sight, hearing e.t.c. are worsened by age, by also higher brain functions such as judgement, memory, concentration, wit intelligence and so on. This can be recipe for disaster if you're a judge, as you heavily rely on things like attention to details, being quick of thought and being somewhat free from emotional bias.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.