dlewis23 Posted March 28, 2006 CID Share Posted March 28, 2006 Married man sues eHarmony over rejection MATCHMAKING SITE REFUSES HIM UNTIL DIVORCE By Mary Anne Ostrom Mercury News John Claassen wants a date so badly he's suing for one. He's taking eHarmony.com to court, because the popular online matchmaker refused to find him the perfect mate. Why? Because he is married. Technically, Claassen says, he is legally separated. But that's not good enough for eHarmony, which says it is in the business of matching singles ``free of relationship commitments.'' That puts him in cyber-dating limbo. ``Most people don't file a suit to get a date,'' Claassen said Friday after filing a civil rights suit last week in Alameda County Superior Court. ``If I had my druthers, I'd be divorced by now. I'm emotionally in a different state than I am legally,'' the 36-year-old Emeryville lawyer said. Claassen alleges eHarmony is discriminating against him on the basis of his marital status. He and his wife of eight years separated last May, and he expects the divorce to be final within two months. When he reached marital status on eHarmony's online compatibility profile, he responded truthfully: ``legally separated.'' But eHarmony says its policy is clear: No marrieds need apply. Citing California civil code, section 51, Claassen alleges eHarmony, based in Pasadena, is breaking state law because it is denying him access to its matching service based on marital status. He seeks $12,000 in civil penalties. In its defense, the cyber love-finder cites customer surveys and focus group testing that show a vast majority of its potential users want their matches to be divorced, widowed or never married at all. EHarmony customer service explained to Claassen in an e-mail that ``we have to create rules based on what's best for most people, most of the time.'' And they welcome him back -- ``once your divorce is final.'' But Claassen isn't waiting. He is ``miffed.'' ``After taking two hours to fill out their online profile,'' he said, ``a message popped up at the end saying they would not find me a match.'' Source: http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/living/community/14199052.htm?source=rss&channel=siliconvalley_community this just shows that People will sue over anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc11890 Posted March 28, 2006 CID Share Posted March 28, 2006 wow how pathetic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted March 28, 2006 CID Share Posted March 28, 2006 He should have just tried another one, it would be a lot less trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark06 Posted March 28, 2006 CID Share Posted March 28, 2006 2 hours is a lot of timec wasted but not as much as this is going to waste him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmer Posted March 28, 2006 CID Share Posted March 28, 2006 yeah saw a few days ago on digg?? Maybe this dude and the guy who thinks centos is a hack attempt should get together and do something.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest philp Posted March 28, 2006 CID Share Posted March 28, 2006 this just shows that People will sue over anything. Nah. It just shows that people from CALIFORNIA will sue over anything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepnklown Posted March 29, 2006 CID Share Posted March 29, 2006 Couldn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmer Posted March 29, 2006 CID Share Posted March 29, 2006 Dont try to confuse John, so many options for him to choose... if you are legally seperated, then yes you would be single.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdawnaz Posted March 29, 2006 CID Share Posted March 29, 2006 ...gawd...it's obvious he complicated things...by being honest...well he at least deserves 2000 for being rejected for being honest and another 10g to get a life...i feel sorry for him...is he cute??...hahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thecableguy Posted March 29, 2006 CID Share Posted March 29, 2006 Californina civil code also allows merchants (regardless of type) to refuse service to anyone, for any reason any time so long as it is not based on race,age,sex, religion or physical condition. California is a fastrack state and this won't make it past the first hearing....as he has no claim....unless he can claim one of the above. He can't claim any monetary damages as he's not been damaged, they never charged him for anything and the fact that he didn't make it past their screening process pretty much puts an end to it. A business has a right to define their customer base, he does not fall within the criteria posted openly on the site for all to see.....once again...he's not been damaged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdawnaz Posted March 29, 2006 CID Share Posted March 29, 2006 it's a joke...nothing to be taken seriously at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j3grizz Posted April 2, 2006 CID Share Posted April 2, 2006 Some people do not have anything better to do than complain. He ran his wife off and now he needs a new hobby! So what to do....... uhhhhhhh......I know I can go file a lawsuit! This kinda ranks up there with sueing Mcdonalds because you eat too much of their food. I guess they twisted his arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.