To be sure, the original pants lawsuit that Pearson initiated in 2005 is technically over. Neither D.C.'s trial court nor its court of appeals agreed with Pearson's claims that his dry cleaner should be hit with a $54 million judgment for losing a pair of Pearson's pants. Pearson had argued that under D.C. law, the dry cleaner was subject to large daily fines for failing to adhere to a "Same Day Service" sign posted at the business.
Yet despite the international uproar surrounding that case, Pearson is back, this time making employment claims in federal court.
But the federal court was not buying it. Retaliation claims are only viable where an employee has been disciplined or fired for so-called "protected speech." To succeed in his case, Pearson would have to show that his speech (the pants lawsuit) involved a matter of public concern. The fact that he sued in part to compel enforcement of D.C.'s consumer-protection laws (going so far as to characterize himself as a "private attorney general" for doing so) did not impress the judge.
So without any "public concern," there was no protected speech, and no retaliation claim could be brought. Never one to back down, Pearson will press on and appeal that decision. We will not be holding our breath to see how that one turns out.
- Ex-Adminstrative Law Judge Takes Suit to the D.C. Circuit (Legal Times)
- Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Soo Chung, et al. (opinion in appeal of pants suit)
- Losing a Job: Your Rights (FindLaw's Employee Rights Center)
- Employment Law Overview (provided by Becker Law Firm)