This disproves your EEOC claim. Clearly the status quo isn't dealing with this problem. You just proved your own case wrong.
Hillary "gays shouldn't lose their jobs and women should be paid the same"
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
No it doesn't. I'd be a horrible fashion designer, and the gay bosses would see that a mile away!
Then you aren't being discriminated against, you are being valued on the merits. You're stuck on some thin ice now.
The PROBLEM is, I can say, "I didn't get hired because I'm straight" and the fashion company would have to prove that wasn't the reason I wasn't hired.
So, instead of innocent until proven guilty, discrimination laws place the burden on the accused to prove his innocence.
Backassward.
Pervasive? How many employers are firing gays for being gay? How many gays are actually being fired for being gay these days? Maybe this is a huge problem. I really don't know. Links please.
Are you saying its this way now or it would be this way if I got my law listing sexual orientation as a protected class?
It's that way now. You just don't want to be lumped in with sex discrimination as a protected class and want a special one just for you.
OK HR Man, why would this be "wallet extraction". If a straight person with severe attendance problem isn't fired, what is the LNDR for firing the gay one with similar attendance?
Well, a few things: A) It is a civil burden-shifting pattern, and ANY LNDR shifts it back to the employee, B) It isn't a criminal innocence presumption, which simply doesn't apply, and C) Why is it difficult for an employer to present an LNDR?
I mean, seriously, THIS is what you are complaining about:
"I was fired for being gay."
Agency: "Why did you fire this person?"
Employer: "I fired them for being late."
That is it. THAT is what you are trying to claim is unfair and somehow unconstitutional. Weak. Poor employers.
I can't imagine what non-discriminatory reason such an employer would come up with to explain the comparator. Thus, the wallet extraction to pay damages to the fired gay employee.
Oh, so by "wallet extractor" you actually mean legitimate, proper damages to an aggrieved person. That clarifies it.
If that's how the world works today, you aren't providing a reason against making the law clear about my civil rights. Your position gets weaker the more we discuss this.
You left out the end of that process:
"I was fired for being gay."
Agency: "Why did you fire this person?"
Employer: "I fired them for being late."
Agency: "I don't believe you. Tardiness is obviously a pretext for your unlawful behavior. How much are you willing to offer to settle this matter and avoid paying for your attorney's new boat?"
What a misrepresentation of the process. If the agency doesn't believe them, of course we should WANT them to further investigate. But this is no longer the "innocent until proven guilty" bs you were just claiming, because the burden has now shifted on to the employee or its representative. You can't complain about the part you are trying to add in the context of "innocent until proven guilty" when your LNDR has already shifted that complaint.
At least be honest.
You realize the difficulty required to prove a negative, don't you?
"You discriminated against me!"
"Did not."
"Prove it."
The Charging Party doesn't have to bring a shred of evidence into this discussion. Just an allegation. The burden of proof is on the employer to provide documentation that proves an adverse action was taken for a non-discriminatory reason. This results in over-documentation of every little thing, and leads to charges of "targeting" by employees. Round and round we go.
Who could be against non-discrimination and equal pay for equal work? This is somehow controversial in your mind?
Again, a misrepresentation of the process by you.
You don't have to prove the negative, the aggrieved employee does. The employer shifts the burden back when they give the LNDR. So, as I posted, they just have to give a non-discriminatory reason for firing them. That is all they HAVE to do. It is up to the complainant to PROVE their case from that point.
Bullshit on the complainant not bringing evidence, you can't post a shred of support for that contention. What you are really complaining about is the employer ever having to do ANYTHING in regards to fired employees, because employers wish to do whatever they want without question. That is an incredibly weak position.
Edit to add:
You are right that you can't simply say, "Did not," because that is a conclusion, not a legitimate non-discriminatory reason. The conclusion isn't theirs to give, they have to give their actual reasons (presuming they aren't, in fact, discriminatory).
Employers and their HR lackies (see Tradition). They truly believe that employers should be able to hire/fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want with no ability to question them. And any questioning of them leads to rallying cries amongst employers of unjust treatment and scummy lawyers.
Honesty: The EEOC's performance is evaluated based on obtaining settlements. Similar to the issues raised in the Texas Prosecutor Disbarred thread. They are not interested in finding the truth, they want a monetary settlement they can notch on their bedpost.
If you can't see how this process is stacked in favor of employees, I don't know what to tell you.
Here's how it works: We receive a charge that says, "I am an African-American woman over the age of 40 with a disability. I was fired from my job. I believe I was discriminated against in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended."
Now we have to write a position statement that lays all our cards on the table, without getting to see any of the cards held by the employee and her legal team.
Bump. Natural, can you fire up your google machine? Any numbers? Just curious how big a problem this really is.
A settlement is something your employer agrees to. How can that be blamed on anybody other than your employer?
Stacked in favor of employees? You were just posting earlier this month that like 10% of claims you dealt with reached settlement. Stacked in favor of employees? What hogwash.
Another misrepresentation of the process by you. I get it, nobody should be able to complain about being fired for discriminatory reasons and certainly no employer should be questioned about it, because history has shown that employers are completely willing to self-report illegal behavior ...
Seriously, you are an HR person who is complaining about having to write an explanation of why you fired someone. Good luck rallying people to your dire cause.
Stacked in favor of employees? You were just posting earlier this month that like 10% of claims you dealt with reached settlement. Stacked in favor of employees? What hogwash.
Another misrepresentation of the process by you. I get it, nobody should be able to complain about being fired for discriminatory reasons and certainly no employer should be questioned about it, because history has shown that employers are completely willing to self-report illegal behavior ...
Seriously, you are an HR person who is complaining about having to write an explanation of why you fired someone. Good luck rallying people to your dire cause.
No numbers here, nor do I know how big of a problem it is, but I would guess it is a bigger issue at the hiring stage than the firing stage.
It's way more fun to spend your day on the internet arguing that you shouldn't have to write an explanation when you fire people than writing explanations all day of why you fired people.
Me too. lucas was the one who used "pervasive" in regards to firing so I figure there must be some numbers out there. I can't find any though.
Here's a synopsis of an actual case that we lost:
One of our location sales managers attempted suicide. She was provided with 12 weeks of FMLA leave. Upon her return, she simply was not the same person. She was no longer able to generate sales and meet goals. It was decided to put her on a performance improvement plan. The Vice President of her department drove to her location (an all-day drive) to discuss the plan with her. She called out on the day of the meeting, obviously greatly aggravating this VP. So, a two day trip turned into three days before she could be counselled on the plan and provided with assistance, guidance and expectations of meeting goals. After a few weeks, she was not progressing toward goal, and continued to experience attendance problems. We fired her.
Despite hard data showing that she was not achieving sales goals that she routinely used to achieve.... despite hard data showing that she was under performing all of her peers at other locations.... despite hard data showing she was making no progress toward achieving her goals... a jury took pity on this pathetic individual and awarded her a six-figure judgment, making her the richest person in the county.
The system sucks. Sorry you can't see that.
One of our location sales managers attempted suicide. She was provided with 12 weeks of FMLA leave. Upon her return, she simply was not the same person. She was no longer able to generate sales and meet goals. It was decided to put her on a performance improvement plan. The Vice President of her department drove to her location (an all-day drive) to discuss the plan with her. She called out on the day of the meeting, obviously greatly aggravating this VP. So, a two day trip turned into three days before she could be counselled on the plan and provided with assistance, guidance and expectations of meeting goals. After a few weeks, she was not progressing toward goal, and continued to experience attendance problems. We fired her.
Despite hard data showing that she was not achieving sales goals that she routinely used to achieve.... despite hard data showing that she was under performing all of her peers at other locations.... despite hard data showing she was making no progress toward achieving her goals... a jury took pity on this pathetic individual and awarded her a six-figure judgment, making her the richest person in the county.
The system sucks. Sorry you can't see that.
Last edited:
Women, minorities, or even white men working for a woman that hates men could be in the same boat you're describing about GLBTs. What if the man hating woman fires the white male without real cause? If it goes to a law suit, it's going to take good counsel and a friendly judge.
You think every law suit should be a slam dunk if it involves GLBTs?
Right... Racism was gone until Obama brought it back.
Who defines "equal work"? How do you define it?
Two cashiers should each make the same? What if one has 2 years experience and the other has 8? What if the one who has 2 years has an MBA (from Iowa State obviously) and the other a GED? What if the one with 2 years experience and MBA is half as fast as the other with 8 years and a GED?
Yup. They want mandatory union-style wage scales. Only seniority on the job is an allowable reason for pay inequity.
You go. Go beat that strawman. I don't believe anyone is saying that experience and performance, along with education can't be rewarded. Having a penis can't be treated preferentially over having a vagina.
I have no idea who you are talking about. Similar performers with similar educational backgrounds and similar performance outcomes should be treated equally. Is that agreed?
No one should be.
So long as performance, experience and time in position are factored in.
No, that's too subjective. If the job doesn't have measurable outcomes, evaluation of performance is therefore subject to scrutiny.
"She has a bad customer service attitude compared to her male counterpart."
Good luck proving that.
But men are way more competent than women (on average), so no wonder they make more than women? (Thought the sexist to himself...)
It sounds like the breakdown was with the jury. It's not that we don't need protections in place, it's that they need to be applied fairly and not by "taking pity" or other emotionally driven methods.
Race (white) and sex (men) are protected classes now. Sexual orientation is not. I want the same "special rights" you have now. And the fun part is that when I get them, they will cover hetersexuals too. I struggle to think of a legitimate argument to be against spelling out rights clearly and definitively in the law.
