Search
  • Phil Griffis

Coppedge Judge Issues Preliminary Ruling in Intelligent Design Case

Multiple media sources report that the judge in David Coppedge’s suit against the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has tentatively ruled against Mr. Coppedge and in favor of JPL.


As reported in previous entries on this blog, Coppedge was employed as a System’s Administrator at JPL.  His suit claims that he was the victim of discrimination and adverse employment actions as the result of his alleged on the job discussions of Intelligent Design. The parties agreed to waive a jury and have the judge both listen to the evidence and decide the case.  After months of testimony, and a summer-long wait, the judge informed the parties of his belief that Coppedge was not dismissed because of his promotion of ID, but because he was combative and did not keep his skills sharp.


The order makes no substantive statement other than that the court intends to rule in favor of the JPL on all causes of action asserted by Mr. Coppedge. It then orders that the JPL put together a statement of decision.


This is typical in a case tried directly to a judge (i.e., without a jury). At the end of the case the judge will typically gather the parties and notify them orally (or by a short letter) that he intends to rule in favor of one side.  He may or may not give more details or insights into the basis of his decision. It is common for the judge to then tell the lawyers for the winning party to put together a proposed decision to be  used as a draft of the court’s final order. If the other side has disagreements with the proposed order it can notify the judge, who then takes the proposed judgment, the comments of the other side, and writes the final version.


There are two reasons for this. Obviously, it takes time and effort to write a lengthy decision. By delegating the task to the winning party, the judge has one less thing to do. Secondly, judges realizes that no one knows the case better than the lawyers. In this case, he realizes that no one can write a better order in favor of JPL, than JPL.


So JPL will write a proposed order exonerating itself, Coppedge will object to it, and the judge will then modify it as he feels necessary and sign off on it as the court’s final decision. The problem with this is that he will be signing off on JPL’s spin on the case. We may never learn what the judge himself actually thought.I will report on the content of the actual decision when it is issued.


WRITTEN BY

THE LAW OFFICE OF PHIL GRIFFIS



Phil Griffis obtained his first jury verdict in 1990, when he convinced a jury that a customer’s fall at his client’s store did not cause the customer’s aspiration pneumonia and stroke. In the years since he has continued to win in courtrooms across the State of Texas.

2 views

Recent Posts

See All

Beware of the Reopening

The President has just announced guidelines for "reopening" the country, and it seems certain that Texas state government will fall in line with them.  As your business gears up for "normal" activity,

© 2018 by The Law Office of Phil Griffis.  All Rights Reserved.

  • Black Instagram Icon
  • Black Facebook Icon
  • Black Twitter Icon
  • Black LinkedIn Icon
  • Black YouTube Icon
We are not your attorney. Nothing on this website or blog should be interpreted as legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship. You should not act or rely on the basis of information on this site without seeking the advice of an attorney. 
1322 Space Park Drive, Suite A248 Houston, Texas 77058

info@griffislawfirm.com

(832) 284-4013