This is one of the first cases where I said out loud, "If you'd just shut the hell up and let her speak!" - JM likes hearing herself talk way too much. It sounded like the Plaintiff was trying to explain she gave them authorization to run the background check in September, but JM kept interrupting her. Then she let the Defendant speak without interruption and he ended up saying just that, but they didn't have her IDs to run it. They should have gotten everything they needed from the get-go and she could have known long before October that she wasn't getting the job.
Yeah that’s this judge! She expects litigants to answer her immediately, but once they start, she will interrupt them as much as she wants, but will shut anyone down that tries to interrupt her!! SMH!!
@@righttoouropinionthanks4710 yes it gets incredibly annoying. She does it a lot but this case in particular was hard to watch. I understand interrupting when they aren't actually answering her question but the Plaintiff was trying to answer. I honestly think that JM was pissed off because her lawsuit was for 10k. Not saying she would have won, but if she sued for
I had a written job offer extended, and I signed the offer. They did the background check and I went and did the drug test. All results were back and I got copies of the drug test results and the background check. 2 weeks after signing the job offer I was told they could not hire me. I was so upset I couldn't believe it. They had all of that information, I signed an offer and then for that to happen was just crushing. I did not feel it was fair but I did understand. It was due to my credit. If you are lucky enough to live in a state where they cannot withhold a job from you because of your credit, then you are lucky. I feel it's not fair that companies will not hire you with less than perfect credit. I mean I understand their position but it still is not fair. Things happen sometimes. ALso, I've heard the judge say if they have bad credit it means they don't pay their bills and this absolutely not always true. I have a low credit score because I have a lot of credit cards but I always pay my payments, never late and never miss a payment, so that statement that they don't pay their bills is false.
This was a case of being misled. Bottomline. Her passion for trying to get her case heard was heartfelt. The ask question after question and then interrupted her attempts to answer. Do I think she deserves 10K? No. However, I do believe she was led to believe she had the job, and made plans that them were complicated by the verbal hiring when they reneged. He surely did some training with those employees so this doesn’t happen again. I 💯 believe they told her ahead of time had the job. The discount the lady from the jump. So she wasn’t fairer heard in her case .
This was a ridiculous lawsuit. She thought she could scare them into hiring her or getting a payout because they had the audacity to not hire her. It was her BAD credit. It was hey questionable background check.
@shandranewell2837 No they didn't 😂 They hadn't even completed the background check yet. And her being hired was CONTINGENT on the background check! Which most all employers do. If you truly believe that she was hired then I have a bridge to sell you.
This happens all the time. Every job that I've had, they will extend a job offer and state that it is contingent on a background check. Once the background check comes through, you start work. This lady was looking for a cash grab and nothing more.
Thank you. These people in the comments are just ridiculous to think that she deserves to be paid. If that was the case, I would sue and so would the millions of people that get rejected from a job offer. Get the heck out of here.
The Plaintiff remained poised and respectful even after the Judge repeatedly cut her off and was a bit rude. Even though the Plaintiff's case didn't have much merit, I appreciate her conduct in the courtroom.
Don't think the Defendant broke any laws, but this is definitely unprofessional practice. They should learn from this and conduct themselves better. Maybe instruct Sally to watch her rhetoric.
@@kinghutt79How is it unprofessional? Most companies go through the interview process and then do a background check before hiring. The plaintiff is a scammer.
@@oldageisdumbNo the office workers started to take her through the hiring process telling her basically she was hired. They shouldn't have brought her back to the office for a walk through until the back ground check was completed. The office staff were wrong for doing that. That was unprofessional. How is the girl a scammer? She wasn't given a chance to dispute wether the information on the back ground check was accurate or not. She applied for a job that she needed to help her pay for her debt. How is that scamming. People are living pay check to pay check. You don't know what she may have gone through to end up like that. So don't judge 🤔
@@valariehunter5389 She’s scamming by trying to get $10k from a company for an absolute BS reason. Companies do that all the time and it’s not u professional. She had absolutely NO GROUNDS to sue them and she tried to hustle $10k. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that an offer is contingent on the results of the background check. If you don’t understand that, that tells me something about your brain cells. And they have the right to not hire her for any reason, so no, she doesn’t get to dispute it. She had horrible credit, it was plain as day. Come on…you can’t really be sticking up for this scammer?
I love the judge but she really kept asking her a question and then not letting her get out more than a few words and then cutting her off, she may be saying nonsense but that was obnoxious
I hate when people say this stupid comment, the judge literally asked the plaintiff time and time how she feels the defendant did something wrong and the plaintiff uses the same excuse that doesn’t even make any sense so why would the judge let her finish the sentence if shes just repeating her self and saying gibberish…
@williewarner6465 well, guess we disagree. If she already knew what she was going to say and she wasn't going to let her talk, then it's stupid to keep asking. This is how some people speak to their kids, hopefully not you though 👍🏻 Maybe I think your comment is stupid, I'm not the only one who noticed 😉 If someone thinks interrupting was not excessive in this particular case then they likely interrupt people constantly. Glad we can all have our opinions.
Maybe she was renting a room in someone's home on a month to month lease. If you listen to the FACTS, the offer was extended to her toward the end of the month. Perhaps she told the owner about her new job and apartment offer, and since her lease was up in a week or so, they allowed her to leave early and rented it out to another tenent. You sheep are so simple minded and obtuse. You roaches have zero ability to think OUTSIDE a box.
you was told to give up her place for his place with a job offer and he changed his mind / kept hanging without fully disclosure and communication with her so a proper decision from the lady can be made to her situation it happens.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the judge in such a mood with a pleasant plaintiff, I think it’s the fact that it was for 10k instead of a nominal fee for “inconvenience”.
She just never lets people finish a sentence after she's just asked them a question. I'm finding her infuriating to watch, much less to listen to these days. Now I know why her days were numbered.
The plaintiff is full of crap. She's just wasting everyone's time. She can't even pass a background check. They definitely couldn't hire her to be involved in managing an entire apartment building.
I had a friend that had a job lined up, they said he was hired but their waiting on the back ground to be completed. It took about a week and a half. They didnt like he had a misdemeanor from 5 years ago, so they recended their offer. Happens all the time. Though it sucks, the defendants didnt do anything illegal. She should have asked them what would disqualify her as an applicant. That way she would have gotten a heads up knowing whats on her credit report.
She should already know what's on her credit report. 6 collections? How can you not know this? I believe she knew, but was "hoping" it would not be an issue (to them)
She knew what was on her credit report and that should have been her first and last indicator that she DID NOT have the job. Not paying your bills will lose you a job every single time.
@@lucky1uShe didn't scam anyone. The woman applied for a job. So she has bad credit. She probably needed a better job than what she previously had. People make mistakes when they're young trying to navigate life.🤔
America has a 400 year bill they have yet to pay to Black people. Its time for them to write that check. Your response is digusting. You don't know her situation. Mighty odd that they tell her she had the job before the background check came back. You need to weigh your words because you never know what tomorrow may bring.
It's hard to believe how stupid the 'average man on the street' answers are when questioned by Harvey. Until you have a total meeting of the minds, their is no work agreement. If you aren't covered by a union contract or a signed business contract, you can be let go at any time for any or no reason in every state because you are an 'at will' employee.
that was evident when 👩🏻⚖️ @6:58 “I like you to tell me EXACTLY what was on the background check…..” The look on the plaintiff’s face = priceless. Kudos to the defendant because you can tell he was only gonna summarize without embarrassing the plaintiff and you can even hear it in his nervous voice when he said “uhh exactly, is that ok??” 👩🏻⚖️ gave zero F’s and was definitely calling the plaintiff out 😂💀
Where did you get the impression that she was evicted?? She said that she told the place that she was living at, that she would be out of there on the first. The same day she was supposed to move into this new apartment for this job but she found out the night before that she wasn't approved. Obviously, the place that she was currently renting, already found a new tenant by then. So she lost the apartment she had because they can't let her stay with the new tenants coming in. I guess one could argue that she may have been in the process of being evicted while she was trying to get this job with a new apartment and the dates just happened to have lined up coincidentally. But, there's no actual evidence to make that claim, other than a hypothetical theory that it's technically possible. Obviously, she could be lying about her situation but again, there's no proof to the contrary. Also, the explanation that she gave does make sense logically. So if I'm missing something here, please let me know.
Even though I completely agree with the verdict and think the plaintiff had no case, Judge Milian would NOT stop interrupting her. Take a shot of tequila for everytime Milian cut her off mid sentence and you'll have cirrhosis within the hour. Not that the plaintiff woulda saved her case by talking more but still...she could hardly get more than 7 words out at a time
Yes, because the plaintiff was not answering the simple question "What did they do wrong?" She kept saying "I feel like they should have done this..." "I feel like they should have done that...." "The background check was supposed to take less time..." Well that doesn't actually answer the question "What did they do wrong?"
I see what you mean, but in a real court the judge would have never heard the case to begin with. The fact that she knew they were going to run a credit check makes this a completely frivolous law suit. JM only heard this case for the entertainment value. This would have been a 2 second case on Judge Judy.
The company dodged a bullet not hiring her the plaintiff is more of a liability than a asset suing for 10k just for not being hired imagine if she got offended or something and retaliated as an employee yikes
And once she was living there, she could refuse to do any work and refuse to pay anything, and it would take months of headache and lots of money to legally evict her....and I'm betting she knows this very well. Just like she knows very well that six collection agencies are after her for her bad debts. They totally dodged a bullet. She's just angry because she was so close to a successful scam, and they stopped her in her tracks.
My Guess is that she was running from a dog she had tied in her last apartment, why was she so quick to give it up before her new job & apartment were in place ?
They do that to get straight fax which she wasn’t answering. Plus they have to interrupt multiple times to find out where the lies are cause. Would you believe that people lie when they’re in court?😮
What are you babbling about??? The plaintiff had a terrible background check that disqualified her from the position. Instead of wasting the courts time she should pay her bills and stop being a cry baby victim looking for free money.
@@richarddawson5836 she does interupt the litigants A LOT! But in this case, the plaintiff's case is outragous! I 100% agree with you on that! But the judge has an annoying habit of not letting litigants finish their sentence 😅
I love Judge Milian and she's usually logical and fair how she judges but this wasn't a good look for her. It seems like she was taking it personally and I didn't like that.
@@robbiecopeland9039ok maybe the amount was excessive but if you can't or won't realize the point of why she sued is like wow, is all I can really say. I see EXACTLY why she did what she did.
@@robbiecopeland9039 EXACTLY. the lady is insane to think they wouldn't check her background, it's so EASY these days to check on people's backgrounds.
its a tactic used to make you frustrated, usually most people will sigh loud and roll thier eyes, and throw a fit, and say its not fair... but its more psychological to see how you compose yourself
Wow the judge was extra rude to the plaintiff. Why bother asking questions, if you will just cut the litigant off mid sentence and In most of the time before she even spoke a word. 😅
@@yahira6928yes we do, because this WOMAN… was trying to cheat the system in getting 10K when she was wrong… surely that would warrant being rude to or are you slow?
The office should have a paper trail, checklist and preapproval process written out because we all know Sally and Susie running that mouth full of incorrect information 😂😂😂
I think she was given the right information from the start and he kept moving the goalpost to put someone he wanted in the job, why else would he not bring one of them in to back him up?
@@queenlauraa3968You don't know what has happened in her life so don't judge. People are living pay check to pay check. She needed a job to repay her debt. 🤔
@@queenlauraa3968 Of course she does, but sometimes people need a leg up and I still believe he used it as an excuse to put someone else in the job, remember she was originally told her rent was free and he never disputed that.
@@valariehunter5389 she don’t look like she struggling at all . She looks well dressed & well taken care of . So she can’t be doing that bad . A lot of people are ghetto fabulous. She’s suing them for 10,000 for nothing that obviously says a lot about her 😅😅😅😅😅
Years ago I was actually told I was hired for a job and it was OK to quit my current job at the time, I am no idiot so I kept my gig and never heard from that manager again. If the big girl ain't singing it's not final....
Almost all businesses do this, basically a "Yeah, we love you, we just have to do a couple of more things for this to be finalized but everything looks like it should be good to go, just keep an eye out for a phone call once the background check comes in." In this case, she wasn't an employee. She didn't have any reason to believe that she was truly an employee.
That's uh bit ofa "reach"....they used tha credit check asa way 2 disqualify her. Tha background check didn't show felonies, or violent crimes. That should've been tha sh1t 2 disqualify her....not poor phukkn credit.
@@greggpoppabich9281she was going to be HANDLING TENANTS MONEY and was going to be a potential TENANT herself, of course credit mattered. It typically does.
At about 10:25 ish til the end the Judge asked about 100 questions and never took a breath to allow the lady to answer at all. She is rude AF. The one time a litigant would've been right to say she didn't let me talk and they didn't 🙄
The corporate job that I accepted, gave me my offer letter first and then did my background check so it is very possible that they would extend an offer and you accept, and they disqualify you based off of your background check in references
Sometimes it shows she is a lawyer and not a true judge. She likes to talk too much herself, instead of letting other explain. She gave the woman not enough room to explain as everytime she cut her off. Very rude.
I understand your point. The issue is as a litigant, especially the plaintiff, the judge gives you to explain why you are here and why the defendant is wrong. What actually happens is, the litigants want to counter and offer new information after the judge has given them the chance to explain the issue. She cuts them off because otherwise she would be there all day.
I’m so happy that Judge Milian explained that she researches the law in cases before hand, because people in the comments and a lot times litigants are arm chair attorneys.
So you actually need her to explain that to you? Obviously - she is an attorney and a former practicing judge and has a law degree. Although laws vary from state to state, the law degree is not specifically tailored for each state. But the concepts are similar. The specifics, such as in this case, are easily researched by any reasonably competent attorney. So of course any TV court show is going to have a “judge” that actually understands the law. And of course all litigants are “arm chair attorneys”. This is Small Claims Court, where no attorneys are required. That means that litigants are almost always representing themselves (attorneys are not required but are allowed). Therefore most are arm chair attorneys.
@@Savvy-v8z Are you out of your mind that women never shuts up...she does more talking than the plaintiff and the defendant combined...... she is literally arguing their case for them and being the judge
@@josha.bdoge2 its a tactic used to make you frustrated, usually most people will sigh loud and roll their eyes, and throw a fit, and say its not fair... but its more psychological to see how you compose yourself, and it sounds like you would have gotten frustrated and walked off or said something inappropriate to be kicked out
One thing that I'll say about this case is perhaps if a tenancy is involved, they should give more time between the background check and hire/move-in date. Moving out of one place requires notice and having a move-in date that quickly for a job that's not fully secured is probably not a great idea. They have a legal notice requirement for their tenants, so they should encourage their staff to follow that as well
Be professional: Promise NOTHING until all T's are crossed & all I's are dotted. Plaintiff is a very intelligent, well spoken lady who knows something could work against her re her credit background.
Freelance work, horrible credit, zero signed lease nor employment offer, but they owe you $10,000? I wonder how many other failed lawsuit attempts she’s had! AND she already knew her background! Why the surprise??
She feels like she was terminated bc of the lady who told her she was already hired. Judge wouldn't let the lady talk AT ALL.!!! Like damn. I understand the verdict but damn she wouldn't even hear the woman out.
I don't understand all of the comments about the plaintiff not getting to speak. I'm at 6:43 and it's only been the plaintiff speaking. And JM does have a habit of interrupting but she does it to everyone. Including the defendant in this case.
This happens all the time. I was verbally offered a position. And even shown where I would sit. Two weeks later, I learned that someone else was hired for the position. My situation had nothing to do with a background check. It's common knowledge that employment is contingent upon background checks. Duh.
* Background checks sometimes include credit checks. Your credit is part of your background check like the Defendant said, her background for not paying bills doesn’t set a good example for the tenants she is collecting rent from. In my background check 25 years ago, they include a credit checks to see what type of person you are in paying your debts. It show your character. Companies do this all the time.
When they did that to you did they admit that they were abusing their employees and paying them so severely low that it was laughable actually not even laughable it was pretty pathetic
They did a credit score check for a job (that’s not a teller or armed guard for Wells Fargo, etc)?!?! I’m my state that’s all you can check it for is one of those jobs… And screw them, you made out..
@@marysanders3380you’re correct however, the position she was applying for requires a credit check with good standing. Would you hire a CFO with 2 bankruptcy filings for to run the finances for your business? I think not. Well, you could be you would be a fool.
@@metorphoric You can spin the narrative all you want. If the background check was that important based on the job; that should have been discussed foremost in the interview process. No you hired or showing no apartments directly after an interview. The only problem the plaintiff had was it wasn't in writing that the job was hers. If it was in writing, it would have been a slam dunk for the Plaintiff. But my point is Judge Milan mind was already made up before any testimony. Even the judge said she read the case before presiding over it. Judge Milan can't stand Black people taking advantage of the system more than any other race. That's the point I'm making!🙄
Oh, Judge Milan! Can she answer the questions you're asking??? I wonder if she ever watches these and realizes how snippy and rude she's being by asking multiple questions and then continually interrupting her... I love Judge Milan, but this was a lot!
She seems really inexperienced. Even in my early twenties I was aware that background checks are outsourced and the time frame is estimated. And if you haven't signed any paperwork, you're not hired, nor do you have a lease. She seems really nice so I feel bad for her.
The absolute gall of this woman. Instead of being embarrassed in apologetic that her past caught up to her. With the background check, she is outraged that they Don't want her, It feels entitled to a windfall profit.
No it doesn’t. She felt that she was misled. They had what they needed at the initial interview. She did a second interview before coming in to see the apartment.
@@akimat418 As judge Judy would say, her feelings are irrelevant… the man clearly told her that her hiring was Contingent upon a clean background check, and if she thought that somehow her history was going to magically disappear, she was wrong.
@@akimat418she could have had a third and fourth interview but I guess she hasn't had enough jobs to know that if they're not happy with the background check they're not going to officially extend an offer.
I don't think the Plaintiff understood that she wasn't hired or wasn't an employee so the CA law that she cited didn't apply to her. It was a dirty deal though that the woman that took her through the apartment made it sound like she did in fact already have the job. Maybe in the future they should do the background check FIRST.
I like when Doug asked her if she was evicted from where she was living previously and she avoids the answer. She said I decided to leave. Well I got news for you, when someone evicts you you better decide to leave!
The judge is very rude in the sense that she will not allow the plaintiff to make her case, present testimony, or even allow the plaintiff to complete a sentence while she is speaking.
The plaintiff is most definitely a different kind of SPECIAL. Although I love Judge Milan, she has a bad habit of asking questions, then interrupting the litigant after the litigant begins to answer.
JM needed to take a chill pill on this one. Why would you ask the plaintiff the same dang questions if you won’t allow her to speak? Is she the acting judge or counsel to the defendant?
The judge fails to realize that this is actually huge negligence on his fault. She was literally hired ON THE SPOT and given choices about the apartment. That's a handshake deal like hell. If Marilyn would've stopped cutting her off, she would've understood that both parties knew about the background check from day 1, but it was HIM who came back the week before to ask her for documents she had ALREADY submitted. He let her go 2 months with believing their verbal offer when he could've did the background check much sooner. You don't know what other opportunities she might've had to pass on because of their yes. They probably put her on standby with the offer and waited until they had better candidates in the applicant pool, and cut her loose. She may not be entitled to 10,000 but this should've been heavily considered.
The judge needs to be empathic- she forgets people go through life. She should have allowed her to say what happened to her that allowed her credit to go unpaid
It's also irrelevant. Being a Black gay man, I've been unemployed for years, and post coronavirus/pandemic, I cannot find a job; and I go on interviews, and I'm never hired. So now I'm doing gigs/freelance/event staff food/catering work at conventions and festivals etc.), and I'll be honest, my background isn't squeaky clean no, but that's my past, and this is now. I'm a hard worker, but I face discrimination on interviews/background checks etc. Unfair. Background checks are supposed to really double check the person isn't using a false identity. That's it. But it seems they are 99 percent of the time, used to unfairly judge people on occurrences in peoples past which are nobody's business unless it's some high profile CIA job. Not to work at a call center, supermarket, restaurant or hotel, or in this case a leasing manager job etc. (whether stuff on the background check, were warranted or warranted, or a parking ticket they never knew they had etc. or if what comes up on the background check is that persons fault or not). Hence why a lot of people with haphazard backgrounds work under the table and/or are self contractors. I feel for Plaintiff. If she just went for an interview and "We'll call you", and background check pulled up her past, and they declined her job offer, okay. But clearly they basically on-boarded her onto the team, and did this Smh. I feel if she sued for a smaller amount (hell no not 10k like 500 bucks for inconvenience, and if she had proof Sandy and Sally/his employees treated her like that) she could have won this case.
What makes her a scammer? She simply doesn’t understand that her offer was contingent on a background check and it doesn’t matter that they waited until the last minute.
Judge is shutting it down because the concept of suing for ten grand for something like this is absurd. If it was a few grand to cover legit damages because they misled her then that may have been a different story. She wasn’t an employee. This was a waste of time.
This actually annoyed me.. judge being super rude, asking these rhetorical questions that she clearly knew the answer to just to interrupt her, and the plaintiff low key blew her life up for this Job opportunity that I’m convinced they made her think she had
The plaintiff is a scam artist. She knew, she wasn't going to pass a background check. The "defendant" is extremely lucky. If the plaintiff has caused, this many problems (not being hired). Can you imagine the amount of Bull S*"*, she would've pulled ,if they would've hired her and allowed her to move into the apartment ? She would've become a nightmare.
Sounds like Sally and Susie ran their mouths too early and probably got a kick out of telling her that on a conference call. Karma never forgets an address and doesn't care if you play victim when it's your turn. I hope this young lady found a BETTER job and living situation.
I’ve had two government employers that did background checks. It both cases, on the first day of the job I was fingerprinted and signed an authorization for the background check. It was made clear that my continued employment was contingent on passing the background checks. If this employer made any mistakes it was not making it clear to the applicant that passing the check was a requirement of the job.
What you are talking about is incredibly different than this People’s Court case. Government background checks are way more intense than a standard credit check.
@@synnove1046 Understood. Still, the point applies that the employer needs to make it clear that the position is contingent on passing the background check.
She needs to get a job and pay the defendant and the court for a frivolous lawsuit! No personal accountability or self-awareness of any kind of Plaintiff! SMH
the plaintiff actually has a point… they shouldn’t have been showing her a unit, picking out paint colors & telling her to come get keys before the background check comes back. for example, no job is gonna tell you to come take your badge your picture & pick up keys BEFORE the background checks comes back. in this case, the plaintiff has point not a $10,000 point but i get where she’s coming from.
@@shergirl92 i’ve never heard of a job even letting you start working before the background check comes back… usually the job offer is contingent upon receiving the results from the background check.
@ mine did.the background check ppl actually called me and said they couldn't get through to my previous company which was to be expected they don't answer the phone . I was on the job for two weeks at this point .
@@shergirl92 good for you but that’s not how it goes. sounds like that job didn’t do their due diligence before allowing you to start. background check, drug screens, employment verifications, etc are usually done before you even can start the job but hey, i digress. 🤷🏽♀️
All places of employment say it’s contingent on a background check. So I’m even let you start working, but if the background check comes back negative you’re out of there. She do it. She just tried to make money and I bet she got evicted from her last place.
This is the first time I’ve disagreed with the judge. They said she was hired. She was under the impression that they already received the background report BEFORE saying she was hired.
Saying you're hired and extending an offer are 2 very different things. If you don't believe so, I would advise you to not do anything before the company that says "you're hired" extends you a written offer, not verbally.!
I felt the Judge was rude to her, she was well spoken and respectful, I think there is a case for one month rent because she already gave notice to the place she was living in.
She jumped the gun, you never let go of a place if you don't have another one lined up. It's a shame, I'm sure she was excited, but she jumped the gun.
There is NO case for 1 month rent because SHE gave her consent to a background check. Further, it was SHE who "assumed" she would get the job, NOT them. They have NO duty to her at all because she was NOT an employee of theirs. Hence, they have ZERO responsibility toward her
Must be embarrassing sometimes for the judge, having so many stereotypical women that don’t take when they’re wrong they’re wrong… And never shut the hell up…
She pretty much filed a fake lawsuit to get 10k. If that were the case, everyone would file a lawsuit and just to get free money of however much they want😂🤷
Their mistake: every time they spoke with her about the position they should have REPEATABLY reminded her that hiring is based on passing the background check. They also should have put it writing on EVERY document application she filled out when applying for the job and have her sign it. I think they "assumed" the background check was just a formality (she presents herself well) and that there would be no problem. However, 6 COLLECTIONS speaks VOLUMES
I wouldn't have given her the job either but it really irks me that the judge asks questions and only allows two words for the answer and cuts them off continually over and over again. It's infuriating!
Wether it was a money grab or not you still want to be heard. You would feel the same way if someone basically said you were hired and started walking you through the intake process.🤔
I feel like I'm not hired until i get my first paycheck 😂
ikr
Asf😂😂😂
So if you don’t get that paycheck you’ll just consider the prior week or two to be volunteer work??
@synnove1046 yes I've worked too many temp jobs in my past
Lol
Nothing is solidified until it’s in WRITING ✍🏼
Plaintiff didn’t have a legal case but the judge drove me crazy with her incessant interruptions on this one
I get annoyed as well, she always interrupts the plaintiffs and defendants in every case. She needs to bite her tongue. That's arbitration for you.
She does that so often smh
This is one of the first cases where I said out loud, "If you'd just shut the hell up and let her speak!" - JM likes hearing herself talk way too much. It sounded like the Plaintiff was trying to explain she gave them authorization to run the background check in September, but JM kept interrupting her. Then she let the Defendant speak without interruption and he ended up saying just that, but they didn't have her IDs to run it. They should have gotten everything they needed from the get-go and she could have known long before October that she wasn't getting the job.
Yeah that’s this judge! She expects litigants to answer her immediately, but once they start, she will interrupt them as much as she wants, but will shut anyone down that tries to interrupt her!! SMH!!
@@righttoouropinionthanks4710 yes it gets incredibly annoying. She does it a lot but this case in particular was hard to watch. I understand interrupting when they aren't actually answering her question but the Plaintiff was trying to answer. I honestly think that JM was pissed off because her lawsuit was for 10k. Not saying she would have won, but if she sued for
I live in California and I have never assumed I had a job until it was in writing with a start date.
I had a written job offer extended, and I signed the offer. They did the background check and I went and did the drug test. All results were back and I got copies of the drug test results and the background check. 2 weeks after signing the job offer I was told they could not hire me. I was so upset I couldn't believe it. They had all of that information, I signed an offer and then for that to happen was just crushing. I did not feel it was fair but I did understand. It was due to my credit. If you are lucky enough to live in a state where they cannot withhold a job from you because of your credit, then you are lucky. I feel it's not fair that companies will not hire you with less than perfect credit. I mean I understand their position but it still is not fair. Things happen sometimes. ALso, I've heard the judge say if they have bad credit it means they don't pay their bills and this absolutely not always true. I have a low credit score because I have a lot of credit cards but I always pay my payments, never late and never miss a payment, so that statement that they don't pay their bills is false.
They could always back out of it… or could close down/ bankrupt!
Exactly!🤦🏾♀️
You always get offer letter before your actually hired.. you not in the door until background and drug test is cleared 😂😂
This was a case of being misled. Bottomline. Her passion for trying to get her case heard was heartfelt. The ask question after question and then interrupted her attempts to answer.
Do I think she deserves 10K? No. However, I do believe she was led to believe she had the job, and made plans that them were complicated by the verbal hiring when they reneged. He surely did some training with those employees so this doesn’t happen again. I 💯 believe they told her ahead of time had the job. The discount the lady from the jump. So she wasn’t fairer heard in her case .
This was a ridiculous lawsuit. She thought she could scare them into hiring her or getting a payout because they had the audacity to not hire her. It was her BAD credit. It was hey questionable background check.
She is the true privileged.
Exactly. She was ridiculous.
@@shandranewell2837 The point is that they never hired her.
@@saramichele7366 YES THEY DID...
@shandranewell2837 No they didn't 😂 They hadn't even completed the background check yet. And her being hired was CONTINGENT on the background check! Which most all employers do. If you truly believe that she was hired then I have a bridge to sell you.
This happens all the time. Every job that I've had, they will extend a job offer and state that it is contingent on a background check. Once the background check comes through, you start work.
This lady was looking for a cash grab and nothing more.
Thank you. These people in the comments are just ridiculous to think that she deserves to be paid. If that was the case, I would sue and so would the millions of people that get rejected from a job offer. Get the heck out of here.
👩🏻⚖️: “Did you have a job?”
Defendant: “freelance” = NO JOB
@@akairiyahiko2602I’m surprised she didn’t sue the credit companies that are trying to collect on her 😂
Yup! I've even started jobs contingent upon my drug test results. If your background is suspect, you know you're on borrowed time Lol
The plaintiff was never hired. This lawsuit was completely ridiculous.
The Plaintiff remained poised and respectful even after the Judge repeatedly cut her off and was a bit rude. Even though the Plaintiff's case didn't have much merit, I appreciate her conduct in the courtroom.
Don't think the Defendant broke any laws, but this is definitely unprofessional practice. They should learn from this and conduct themselves better. Maybe instruct Sally to watch her rhetoric.
@@kinghutt79How is it unprofessional? Most companies go through the interview process and then do a background check before hiring. The plaintiff is a scammer.
Nice picture.
@@oldageisdumbNo the office workers started to take her through the hiring process telling her basically she was hired. They shouldn't have brought her back to the office for a walk through until the back ground check was completed. The office staff were wrong for doing that. That was unprofessional. How is the girl a scammer? She wasn't given a chance to dispute wether the information on the back ground check was accurate or not. She applied for a job that she needed to help her pay for her debt. How is that scamming. People are living pay check to pay check. You don't know what she may have gone through to end up like that. So don't judge 🤔
@@valariehunter5389 She’s scamming by trying to get $10k from a company for an absolute BS reason. Companies do that all the time and it’s not u professional. She had absolutely NO GROUNDS to sue them and she tried to hustle $10k. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that an offer is contingent on the results of the background check. If you don’t understand that, that tells me something about your brain cells. And they have the right to not hire her for any reason, so no, she doesn’t get to dispute it. She had horrible credit, it was plain as day. Come on…you can’t really be sticking up for this scammer?
That was risky to give up her place without an official offer in writing. I would’ve told them that I’ll accept the job but move in next month.
You think someone with bad credit was paying her rent on time or another non payment would hurt her already bad credit?
@jjman533 I was talking about her having a place to live, not her credit. But yeah, I do know people with bad credit who pay their rent on time.
In california you give 30 days or more notice... so either she lied or she was kicked out already.
Damn she got on my nerves
@@jjman533my credit isn't good thanks to medical bills but I've NEVER been late on my rent. Not once.
I love the judge but she really kept asking her a question and then not letting her get out more than a few words and then cutting her off, she may be saying nonsense but that was obnoxious
She does that when she already knows the answer or the answer she’s come to.. and I’m like then WHY ASK
U took the words right out of my mouth. I love Milian too but sheesh!. She couldn't finish one sentence. On the other hand 10k for this is ridiculous
Facts! That was very obnoxious.
I hate when people say this stupid comment, the judge literally asked the plaintiff time and time how she feels the defendant did something wrong and the plaintiff uses the same excuse that doesn’t even make any sense so why would the judge let her finish the sentence if shes just repeating her self and saying gibberish…
@williewarner6465 well, guess we disagree. If she already knew what she was going to say and she wasn't going to let her talk, then it's stupid to keep asking. This is how some people speak to their kids, hopefully not you though 👍🏻 Maybe I think your comment is stupid, I'm not the only one who noticed 😉 If someone thinks interrupting was not excessive in this particular case then they likely interrupt people constantly. Glad we can all have our opinions.
I love watching Judge Milian but it’s so frustrating when she always ask a question but interrupts the answer immediately.
You were not Terminated! You were just not Hired! That's the difference.
She's so well informed about laws, but she agreed to leave her old place before signing a new lease? How does that make sense????!
She was getting evicted 😂😂😂
Maybe she was renting a room in someone's home on a month to month lease. If you listen to the FACTS, the offer was extended to her toward the end of the month. Perhaps she told the owner about her new job and apartment offer, and since her lease was up in a week or so, they allowed her to leave early and rented it out to another tenent. You sheep are so simple minded and obtuse. You roaches have zero ability to think OUTSIDE a box.
@@MsBebe97 wrong!
you was told to give up her place for his place with a job offer and he changed his mind / kept hanging without fully disclosure and communication with her so a proper decision from the lady can be made to her situation it happens.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the judge in such a mood with a pleasant plaintiff, I think it’s the fact that it was for 10k instead of a nominal fee for “inconvenience”.
And it’s a disgraceful bogus ass lawsuit
She just never lets people finish a sentence after she's just asked them a question. I'm finding her infuriating to watch, much less to listen to these days. Now I know why her days were numbered.
@@SamuelGSherman She knew she would fail her background check.
The plaintiff is full of crap. She's just wasting everyone's time. She can't even pass a background check. They definitely couldn't hire her to be involved in managing an entire apartment building.
Pleasant? It was all a facade. You could see right through it at the end.
I had a friend that had a job lined up, they said he was hired but their waiting on the back ground to be completed. It took about a week and a half. They didnt like he had a misdemeanor from 5 years ago, so they recended their offer. Happens all the time. Though it sucks, the defendants didnt do anything illegal. She should have asked them what would disqualify her as an applicant. That way she would have gotten a heads up knowing whats on her credit report.
You are correct, but better practice is completing the background check before an employer notifies the applicant of an offer of Employment
She should already know what's on her credit report. 6 collections? How can you not know this? I believe she knew, but was "hoping" it would not be an issue (to them)
She's such a scammer, those people are so lucky she didn't get in.
She knew what was on her credit report and that should have been her first and last indicator that she DID NOT have the job. Not paying your bills will lose you a job every single time.
@@lucky1uShe didn't scam anyone. The woman applied for a job. So she has bad credit. She probably needed a better job than what she previously had. People make mistakes when they're young trying to navigate life.🤔
They should be so happy she wasn’t hired. What a nightmare.
Plantiff isnt playing she remembers every name of every person n every detail but can't remember to pay ur bills 😂
😂😂😂😂
She's a foreigner feeling entitled.
@@smoothlyabrasive9805 foreigner? That's a overreaching and nothing to do with the isdue at hand.
@@smoothlyabrasive9805how do you know she’s a foreigner?
America has a 400 year bill they have yet to pay to Black people. Its time for them to write that check. Your response is digusting. You don't know her situation. Mighty odd that they tell her she had the job before the background check came back. You need to weigh your words because you never know what tomorrow may bring.
Clearly the judge did not like this woman. She was being really rude.
She's good at semantics 😂 cause when she was talking to Doug it sure sounded like she was being evicted from where she was currently living 😂
She was TOTALLY being evicted from where she was living. She’s a scammer.
It's hard to believe how stupid the 'average man on the street' answers are when questioned by Harvey. Until you have a total meeting of the minds, their is no work agreement. If you aren't covered by a union contract or a signed business contract, you can be let go at any time for any or no reason in every state because you are an 'at will' employee.
lol yeh. The look on the audience’s faces while she was telling the story was telling 🙄
that was evident when 👩🏻⚖️ @6:58 “I like you to tell me EXACTLY what was on the background check…..” The look on the plaintiff’s face = priceless. Kudos to the defendant because you can tell he was only gonna summarize without embarrassing the plaintiff and you can even hear it in his nervous voice when he said “uhh exactly, is that ok??” 👩🏻⚖️ gave zero F’s and was definitely calling the plaintiff out 😂💀
Where did you get the impression that she was evicted?? She said that she told the place that she was living at, that she would be out of there on the first. The same day she was supposed to move into this new apartment for this job but she found out the night before that she wasn't approved. Obviously, the place that she was currently renting, already found a new tenant by then. So she lost the apartment she had because they can't let her stay with the new tenants coming in. I guess one could argue that she may have been in the process of being evicted while she was trying to get this job with a new apartment and the dates just happened to have lined up coincidentally. But, there's no actual evidence to make that claim, other than a hypothetical theory that it's technically possible. Obviously, she could be lying about her situation but again, there's no proof to the contrary. Also, the explanation that she gave does make sense logically. So if I'm missing something here, please let me know.
I literally couldn’t even finish watching this because of the judge. She acted like she was on speed or something . So rude.
She never signed anything saying she was hired how do they owe her anything?
She is crazy
Even though I completely agree with the verdict and think the plaintiff had no case, Judge Milian would NOT stop interrupting her. Take a shot of tequila for everytime Milian cut her off mid sentence and you'll have cirrhosis within the hour. Not that the plaintiff woulda saved her case by talking more but still...she could hardly get more than 7 words out at a time
Yes, because the plaintiff was not answering the simple question "What did they do wrong?" She kept saying "I feel like they should have done this..." "I feel like they should have done that...." "The background check was supposed to take less time..." Well that doesn't actually answer the question "What did they do wrong?"
I see what you mean, but in a real court the judge would have never heard the case to begin with. The fact that she knew they were going to run a credit check makes this a completely frivolous law suit. JM only heard this case for the entertainment value. This would have been a 2 second case on Judge Judy.
The judge Judy show is also for entertainment so a 2 minute case wouldn't be very entertaining.@@allbullaside7778
Exactly!! She always asks a question and then cut people off!!
Crazy!!
She is horrible!! So sad!!!
The company dodged a bullet not hiring her the plaintiff is more of a liability than a asset suing for 10k just for not being hired imagine if she got offended or something and retaliated as an employee yikes
Right!
And once she was living there, she could refuse to do any work and refuse to pay anything, and it would take months of headache and lots of money to legally evict her....and I'm betting she knows this very well. Just like she knows very well that six collection agencies are after her for her bad debts.
They totally dodged a bullet. She's just angry because she was so close to a successful scam, and they stopped her in her tracks.
@@JamieM470 Exactly!
My Guess is that she was running from a dog she had tied in her last apartment, why was she so quick to give it up before her new job & apartment were in place ?
Wow good point 👉
The entire case I’m yelling “ DAMN LET HER TALK!” The judge would not let her answer her questions!!
Big Facts
She almost always does that... same with Judge Judy, who continues to say shhhhhh, wait a second, shoosh, shhh, shh 😅
They do that to get straight fax which she wasn’t answering. Plus they have to interrupt multiple times to find out where the lies are cause. Would you believe that people lie when they’re in court?😮
What are you babbling about??? The plaintiff had a terrible background check that disqualified her from the position. Instead of wasting the courts time she should pay her bills and stop being a cry baby victim looking for free money.
@@richarddawson5836 she does interupt the litigants A LOT! But in this case, the plaintiff's case is outragous! I 100% agree with you on that! But the judge has an annoying habit of not letting litigants finish their sentence 😅
Omg she is being so obnoxious today! Let the woman speak.
I'm SHOCKED that she ALLOWED the Defendant to read what came back regarding her credit!!? 👀
I'm shocked she didn't ask if they were sleeping together! That's usually the first place she goes!😅
It was necessary, to know if his decision was justified obviously. Nobody twisted her hand to be on TV , she obviously signed for that
The judge AGGRAVATED me so much!!!!!! The way she was acting, you would’ve thought she was the one being sued 🙄
Because the lawsuit was dumb from the beginning. She wasn’t an employee yet, and someone with terrible credit is looking for $10,000
I love Judge Milian and she's usually logical and fair how she judges but this wasn't a good look for her. It seems like she was taking it personally and I didn't like that.
@@robbiecopeland9039ok maybe the amount was excessive but if you can't or won't realize the point of why she sued is like wow, is all I can really say. I see EXACTLY why she did what she did.
Like shuuuuuut uppppp
@@robbiecopeland9039 EXACTLY. the lady is insane to think they wouldn't check her background, it's so EASY these days to check on people's backgrounds.
omg JM needs to STOP INTERUPPTING. She asks a question and then as soon as they start answering she cuts them off!
High IQs dont need to hear entire answer if person needs to hear nust fee or singke word answer.
@@wileecoyote5749You need to learn how to write 😂
JM cuts people off when she already decided she doesn't like you or she already has decided the case. Sometimes she likes to trip people up.🤔
its a tactic used to make you frustrated, usually most people will sigh loud and roll thier eyes, and throw a fit, and say its not fair... but its more psychological to see how you compose yourself
i think this is what people mean whenever they say "i didn't really get a chance to speak" after losing a case
Wow the judge was extra rude to the plaintiff. Why bother asking questions, if you will just cut the litigant off mid sentence and In most of the time before she even spoke a word. 😅
Cause the plaintiff is a money hungry rat wasting her time
She is a racist.
We know why she was rude🤨
@@yahira6928yes we do, because this WOMAN… was trying to cheat the system in getting 10K when she was wrong… surely that would warrant being rude to or are you slow?
JM has adhd she gets real hyper at times especially when you’re suing for big money lol
The office should have a paper trail, checklist and preapproval process written out because we all know Sally and Susie running that mouth full of incorrect information 😂😂😂
I think she was given the right information from the start and he kept moving the goalpost to put someone he wanted in the job, why else would he not bring one of them in to back him up?
She needs pay her bills period 😅😅
@@queenlauraa3968You don't know what has happened in her life so don't judge. People are living pay check to pay check. She needed a job to repay her debt. 🤔
@@queenlauraa3968 Of course she does, but sometimes people need a leg up and I still believe he used it as an excuse to put someone else in the job, remember she was originally told her rent was free and he never disputed that.
@@valariehunter5389 she don’t look like she struggling at all . She looks well dressed & well taken care of . So she can’t be doing that bad . A lot of people are ghetto fabulous. She’s suing them for 10,000 for nothing that obviously says a lot about her 😅😅😅😅😅
Years ago I was actually told I was hired for a job and it was OK to quit my current job at the time, I am no idiot so I kept my gig and never heard from that manager again. If the big girl ain't singing it's not final....
Almost all businesses do this, basically a "Yeah, we love you, we just have to do a couple of more things for this to be finalized but everything looks like it should be good to go, just keep an eye out for a phone call once the background check comes in."
In this case, she wasn't an employee. She didn't have any reason to believe that she was truly an employee.
We’re all not dumb, she needs that 10 grand to pay off those six creditors LOL
😂😂😂😂
She's not gonna pay them off, she just wants more stuff, she can't afford .
Yep! All about the Benjamin’s! 🤨. 🙄
That's uh bit ofa "reach"....they used tha credit check asa way 2 disqualify her. Tha background check didn't show felonies, or violent crimes. That should've been tha sh1t 2 disqualify her....not poor phukkn credit.
@@greggpoppabich9281she was going to be HANDLING TENANTS MONEY and was going to be a potential TENANT herself, of course credit mattered. It typically does.
At about 10:25 ish til the end the Judge asked about 100 questions and never took a breath to allow the lady to answer at all. She is rude AF. The one time a litigant would've been right to say she didn't let me talk and they didn't 🙄
The corporate job that I accepted, gave me my offer letter first and then did my background check so it is very possible that they would extend an offer and you accept, and they disqualify you based off of your background check in references
She had Ntn in writing, just word of you’re hired…..like why plan to move and you have no contract??
She acts as if she's smart. Girl, you didn't sign anything, and they had a right not to accept you after doing your background check. Scammer.
Sometimes it shows she is a lawyer and not a true judge. She likes to talk too much herself, instead of letting other explain. She gave the woman not enough room to explain as everytime she cut her off. Very rude.
I understand your point. The issue is as a litigant, especially the plaintiff, the judge gives you to explain why you are here and why the defendant is wrong. What actually happens is, the litigants want to counter and offer new information after the judge has given them the chance to explain the issue. She cuts them off because otherwise she would be there all day.
Lol ever try to get your point across to a Latina? Not happening
Very rude
Yep. Sometimes it's hard to watch her. Talks too much.
She was a judge in Miami before People’s Court.
I’m so happy that Judge Milian explained that she researches the law in cases before hand, because people in the comments and a lot times litigants are arm chair attorneys.
She has the education but is literally doing what we are doing. 🙃
Aren't we all arm chair attorneys. Sometimes the judge misses. And sometimes they're biased.🥴
@@craZbeauTfulAre you kidding?!
So you actually need her to explain that to you? Obviously - she is an attorney and a former practicing judge and has a law degree. Although laws vary from state to state, the law degree is not specifically tailored for each state. But the concepts are similar. The specifics, such as in this case, are easily researched by any reasonably competent attorney. So of course any TV court show is going to have a “judge” that actually understands the law. And of course all litigants are “arm chair attorneys”. This is Small Claims Court, where no attorneys are required. That means that litigants are almost always representing themselves (attorneys are not required but are allowed). Therefore most are arm chair attorneys.
Judge is ridiculous in her cutting off the plaintiff and not letting her finish,then trying to make her out to be a liar. Totally unprofessional
not at all. the plaintiff was there being greedy and the judge doesn't give grace to people like that
So we pity liars ?
@@Savvy-v8z Are you out of your mind that women never shuts up...she does more talking than the plaintiff and the defendant combined...... she is literally arguing their case for them and being the judge
She is a liar. And just trying to get money for no reason. She FAILED BACKGROUND. Who on earth thinks u can sue for that
@@josha.bdoge2 its a tactic used to make you frustrated, usually most people will sigh loud and roll their eyes, and throw a fit, and say its not fair... but its more psychological to see how you compose yourself, and it sounds like you would have gotten frustrated and walked off or said something inappropriate to be kicked out
One thing that I'll say about this case is perhaps if a tenancy is involved, they should give more time between the background check and hire/move-in date. Moving out of one place requires notice and having a move-in date that quickly for a job that's not fully secured is probably not a great idea. They have a legal notice requirement for their tenants, so they should encourage their staff to follow that as well
Be professional: Promise NOTHING until all T's are crossed & all I's are dotted.
Plaintiff is a very intelligent, well spoken lady who knows something could work against her re her credit background.
"We like uou and will hire you as long as you pass all our checks"
Fails background, "they promised me, now i want 10k".....some crazy gymnastics here
Freelance work, horrible credit, zero signed lease nor employment offer, but they owe you $10,000? I wonder how many other failed lawsuit attempts she’s had! AND she already knew her background! Why the surprise??
The company dodged a bullet.
She feels like she was terminated bc of the lady who told her she was already hired. Judge wouldn't let the lady talk AT ALL.!!! Like damn. I understand the verdict but damn she wouldn't even hear the woman out.
I don't understand all of the comments about the plaintiff not getting to speak. I'm at 6:43 and it's only been the plaintiff speaking. And JM does have a habit of interrupting but she does it to everyone. Including the defendant in this case.
This happens all the time. I was verbally offered a position. And even shown where I would sit. Two weeks later, I learned that someone else was hired for the position. My situation had nothing to do with a background check. It's common knowledge that employment is contingent upon background checks. Duh.
She's interrupting because that lady has no case.
Why do they keep calling it a background check?? She has bad credit history. Is a credit check.
* Background checks sometimes include credit checks. Your credit is part of your background check like the Defendant said, her background for not paying bills doesn’t set a good example for the tenants she is collecting rent from.
In my background check 25 years ago, they include a credit checks to see what type of person you are in paying your debts. It show your character. Companies do this all the time.
They made the right decision not hiring her. She would be trouble.
100%
A job offer is not the same as hiring you. Job offers are contingent on passing background. She didn't pass background. This lawsuit is ridiculous.
I got denied so many jobs bc of bad credit when I was in my 20s. Forever 21 told me no bc of my credit score 😂 I was floored. Now my score of 751!!!!
When they did that to you did they admit that they were abusing their employees and paying them so severely low that it was laughable actually not even laughable it was pretty pathetic
They did a credit score check for a job (that’s not a teller or armed guard for Wells Fargo, etc)?!?! I’m my state that’s all you can check it for is one of those jobs… And screw them, you made out..
I wished the judge would let the poor lady explain herself for god sake , without cutting her off all the time ..
She had plenty of time to provide concrete explanations. She is risk with bad bad credit habits.
@@smoothlyabrasive9805 Having bad credit is not a crime. Just poor life decisions. Not the end of the world. Get off your high horse!
@@marysanders3380 I'm not on a high horse I'm on God's cloud thanking him everyday for a healthy life so far in my life, BUT she had time to explain.
@@marysanders3380you’re correct however, the position she was applying for requires a credit check with good standing. Would you hire a CFO with 2 bankruptcy filings for to run the finances for your business? I think not. Well, you could be you would be a fool.
@@metorphoric You can spin the narrative all you want. If the background check was that important based on the job; that should have been discussed foremost in the interview process. No you hired or showing no apartments directly after an interview. The only problem the plaintiff had was it wasn't in writing that the job was hers. If it was in writing, it would have been a slam dunk for the Plaintiff. But my point is Judge Milan mind was already made up before any testimony. Even the judge said she read the case before presiding over it. Judge Milan can't stand Black people taking advantage of the system more than any other race. That's the point I'm making!🙄
I agree. It's totally out of character for the judge to keep interrupting this lady.
There is no way they would do a complete renovation of the kitchen for a new tenant because she did odd jobs around the complex.
Judge yelling at the plaintiff not really necessary. And maybe she should have had Sally there as some sort of witness for her....
Oh, Judge Milan! Can she answer the questions you're asking??? I wonder if she ever watches these and realizes how snippy and rude she's being by asking multiple questions and then continually interrupting her... I love Judge Milan, but this was a lot!
Ever heard of editing? Yeah it doesn't happen in tv shows. You are an easy sheep to fool.
Same here.. she’s my favorite TV Judge but the interruptions were excessive…
She seems really inexperienced. Even in my early twenties I was aware that background checks are outsourced and the time frame is estimated. And if you haven't signed any paperwork, you're not hired, nor do you have a lease. She seems really nice so I feel bad for her.
They also should not have shown her unit paint Color’s keys etc
The absolute gall of this woman. Instead of being embarrassed in apologetic that her past caught up to her. With the background check, she is outraged that they Don't want her, It feels entitled to a windfall profit.
No it doesn’t. She felt that she was misled. They had what they needed at the initial interview. She did a second interview before coming in to see the apartment.
@@akimat418 As judge Judy would say, her feelings are irrelevant… the man clearly told her that her hiring was Contingent upon a clean background check, and if she thought that somehow her history was going to magically disappear, she was wrong.
@@akimat418she could have had a third and fourth interview but I guess she hasn't had enough jobs to know that if they're not happy with the background check they're not going to officially extend an offer.
I don't think the Plaintiff understood that she wasn't hired or wasn't an employee so the CA law that she cited didn't apply to her. It was a dirty deal though that the woman that took her through the apartment made it sound like she did in fact already have the job. Maybe in the future they should do the background check FIRST.
Alternatively, the woman could have just kept looking for another job instead of wasting time suing people.
They aren’t going to run a background check on potential employees that they don’t like
Right. Many people don't understand that. It's not her fault. It was dirty either way.
They wanted to hire her and were preparing for if they did hire her. They didn't know her credit was so bad because she never disclosed that.
I like when Doug asked her if she was evicted from where she was living previously and she avoids the answer. She said I decided to leave. Well I got news for you, when someone evicts you you better decide to leave!
The judge is very rude in the sense that she will not allow the plaintiff to make her case, present testimony, or even allow the plaintiff to complete a sentence while she is speaking.
The plaintiff is most definitely a different kind of SPECIAL.
Although I love Judge Milan, she has a bad habit of asking questions, then interrupting the litigant after the litigant begins to answer.
JM needed to take a chill pill on this one. Why would you ask the plaintiff the same dang questions if you won’t allow her to speak? Is she the acting judge or counsel to the defendant?
The judge fails to realize that this is actually huge negligence on his fault. She was literally hired ON THE SPOT and given choices about the apartment. That's a handshake deal like hell. If Marilyn would've stopped cutting her off, she would've understood that both parties knew about the background check from day 1, but it was HIM who came back the week before to ask her for documents she had ALREADY submitted. He let her go 2 months with believing their verbal offer when he could've did the background check much sooner. You don't know what other opportunities she might've had to pass on because of their yes. They probably put her on standby with the offer and waited until they had better candidates in the applicant pool, and cut her loose. She may not be entitled to 10,000 but this should've been heavily considered.
The judge needs to be empathic- she forgets people go through life. She should have allowed her to say what happened to her that allowed her credit to go unpaid
It's also irrelevant. Being a Black gay man, I've been unemployed for years, and post coronavirus/pandemic, I cannot find a job; and I go on interviews, and I'm never hired. So now I'm doing gigs/freelance/event staff food/catering work at conventions and festivals etc.), and I'll be honest, my background isn't squeaky clean no, but that's my past, and this is now. I'm a hard worker, but I face discrimination on interviews/background checks etc. Unfair. Background checks are supposed to really double check the person isn't using a false identity. That's it. But it seems they are 99 percent of the time, used to unfairly judge people on occurrences in peoples past which are nobody's business unless it's some high profile CIA job. Not to work at a call center, supermarket, restaurant or hotel, or in this case a leasing manager job etc. (whether stuff on the background check, were warranted or warranted, or a parking ticket they never knew they had etc. or if what comes up on the background check is that persons fault or not). Hence why a lot of people with haphazard backgrounds work under the table and/or are self contractors. I feel for Plaintiff. If she just went for an interview and "We'll call you", and background check pulled up her past, and they declined her job offer, okay. But clearly they basically on-boarded her onto the team, and did this Smh. I feel if she sued for a smaller amount (hell no not 10k like 500 bucks for inconvenience, and if she had proof Sandy and Sally/his employees treated her like that) she could have won this case.
There is a difference between a tentative offer and your final official offer which you would receive after the clearing of the background check.
Without even seeing the video ... I'm thinking she's a scammer😂😂😂
She is a scammer
What makes her a scammer? She simply doesn’t understand that her offer was contingent on a background check and it doesn’t matter that they waited until the last minute.
@@fitnessfocusedshe knew a background check was happening. What did she think it was for?
So all you saw was the plantiffs skin color and you decided she MUST be a scammer?
Gotcha
@@forgetmeknotts3044 Your assuming that's dangerous.
Judge is shutting it down because the concept of suing for ten grand for something like this is absurd. If it was a few grand to cover legit damages because they misled her then that may have been a different story. She wasn’t an employee. This was a waste of time.
I saw it coming . .... Judgement for the defendant!
This actually annoyed me.. judge being super rude, asking these rhetorical questions that she clearly knew the answer to just to interrupt her, and the plaintiff low key blew her life up for this Job opportunity that I’m convinced they made her think she had
She’s dmb, she’s sloww, she’s wildin, she really thought she was gonna win that’s not option 😂😂
The plaintiff is a scam artist. She knew, she wasn't going to pass a background check. The "defendant" is extremely lucky. If the plaintiff has caused, this many problems (not being hired). Can you imagine the amount of Bull S*"*, she would've pulled ,if they would've hired her and allowed her to move into the apartment ? She would've become a nightmare.
Talks well but is a grifter.
Plaintiff is looking for free money. Flapping gums! JM was out of patience with this ridiculous lawsuit.
Couldve done background check after first interview...
Sounds like Sally and Susie ran their mouths too early and probably got a kick out of telling her that on a conference call. Karma never forgets an address and doesn't care if you play victim when it's your turn. I hope this young lady found a BETTER job and living situation.
I’ve had two government employers that did background checks. It both cases, on the first day of the job I was fingerprinted and signed an authorization for the background check. It was made clear that my continued employment was contingent on passing the background checks. If this employer made any mistakes it was not making it clear to the applicant that passing the check was a requirement of the job.
What you are talking about is incredibly different than this People’s Court case. Government background checks are way more intense than a standard credit check.
@@synnove1046 Understood. Still, the point applies that the employer needs to make it clear that the position is contingent on passing the background check.
Pretty sure Sally and Sandy didn't even come close to emphasizing that point.
She needs to get a job and pay the defendant and the court for a frivolous lawsuit! No personal accountability or self-awareness of any kind of Plaintiff! SMH
the plaintiff actually has a point… they shouldn’t have been showing her a unit, picking out paint colors & telling her to come get keys before the background check comes back. for example, no job is gonna tell you to come take your badge your picture & pick up keys BEFORE the background checks comes back. in this case, the plaintiff has point not a $10,000 point but i get where she’s coming from.
Agreed, they knew they misled her which is why they conferenced called her
A job can absolutely do that you can be on the job and they let you go over something in your background
@@shergirl92 i’ve never heard of a job even letting you start working before the background check comes back… usually the job offer is contingent upon receiving the results from the background check.
@ mine did.the background check ppl actually called me and said they couldn't get through to my previous company which was to be expected they don't answer the phone . I was on the job for two weeks at this point .
@@shergirl92 good for you but that’s not how it goes. sounds like that job didn’t do their due diligence before allowing you to start. background check, drug screens, employment verifications, etc are usually done before you even can start the job but hey, i digress. 🤷🏽♀️
All places of employment say it’s contingent on a background check. So I’m even let you start working, but if the background check comes back negative you’re out of there. She do it. She just tried to make money and I bet she got evicted from her last place.
This is the first time I’ve disagreed with the judge. They said she was hired. She was under the impression that they already received the background report BEFORE saying she was hired.
Saying you're hired and extending an offer are 2 very different things. If you don't believe so, I would advise you to not do anything before the company that says "you're hired" extends you a written offer, not verbally.!
She was extremely rude
She was trying to get an easy paycheck, left looking like a fool
I felt the Judge was rude to her, she was well spoken and respectful, I think there is a case for one month rent because she already gave notice to the place she was living in.
She jumped the gun, you never let go of a place if you don't have another one lined up. It's a shame, I'm sure she was excited, but she jumped the gun.
It’s not his fault she jumped the gun and made a bad choice
There is NO case for 1 month rent because SHE gave her consent to a background check. Further, it was SHE who "assumed" she would get the job, NOT them. They have NO duty to her at all because she was NOT an employee of theirs. Hence, they have ZERO responsibility toward her
Milian can't STAND educated, well spoken Black people. Shes racist af...AND she's aging very badly😂😂😂😂😂
I don’t ever believe the job is mine until I get a start date and ACTUALLY state. I don’t even trust the written job offer lol
They dodged a bullet not hiring this lady! Imagine the lawsuit she would have thought up if they would have hired her. Money grab
She thought she was gonna get $10,000! 😂
No $10,000 for you!!! 😂😂
It’s called a CONDITIONAL JOB OFFER (CJO).
The plaintiff is wrong,.
Next!
damn i don’t disagree with her decision but JM did not let the plaintiff speak at ALL
Must be embarrassing sometimes for the judge, having so many stereotypical women that don’t take when they’re wrong they’re wrong…
And never shut the hell up…
This was a joke of a trial. Why even bother asking a question if you won’t let the party involved answer?? Such a travesty.
I believe the judge is a little short because this is a frivolous lawsuit
She pretty much filed a fake lawsuit to get 10k. If that were the case, everyone would file a lawsuit and just to get free money of however much they want😂🤷
Their mistake: every time they spoke with her about the position they should have REPEATABLY reminded her that hiring is based on passing the background check. They also should have put it writing on EVERY document application she filled out when applying for the job and have her sign it. I think they "assumed" the background check was just a formality (she presents herself well) and that there would be no problem. However, 6 COLLECTIONS speaks VOLUMES
Yes. Repeatedly, reminding her. From the start 😮
Why won't the judge allow this woman to speak? She asks questions and never let's her respond and keeps talking over her.
The judge seems so irritated with the plaintiff I would have read the room ten minutes ago and just walked away
I wouldn't have given her the job either but it really irks me that the judge asks questions and only allows two words for the answer and cuts them off continually over and over again. It's infuriating!
Mama used to say "Don't count all your eggs before they hatch!" She should have waited until the background check was completed.
I swear i don't think i actually have a job until I'm 90 days in lol i could never be this confident
She had told all her friends that she had an apartment and a job so...😢
I think JM kept cutting this plaintiff off because she knew it was a BS money-grab case from jump!
Wether it was a money grab or not you still want to be heard. You would feel the same way if someone basically said you were hired and started walking you through the intake process.🤔