This was in a very rural part of Florida and they hated our attorney (a flamboyant gay man). We fired him.
Hillary "gays shouldn't lose their jobs and women should be paid the same"
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
This was in a very rural part of Florida and they hated our attorney (a flamboyant gay man). We fired him.
I doubt its huge, as i doubt the budget to study and quantify it is huge, but google found 11 stories you can read here if you like specific instances.
http://www.advocate.com/year-review/2013/12/18/meet-people-fired-being-lgbt-2013
LOL, a guy claiming he was fired because he's a white man will have a very difficult trip through the EEOC wonderland.
I would be interested in someone defending why sexual orientation is not a protected class, other than saying I don't like them.
Yes, it happens. But, imagine if Bruce started coming to work dressed as Kaitlyn. I suppose the employer is just supposed to ignore the obvious disruption this will cause in the workplace as tongues start to wag and people complain about Bruce using the women's bathroom. But the employer must focus on everyone else instead of the source of the disruption.
Thanks. My google machine did find that one and I did read it. Again, lucass used P word and I was just curious if there was anything to back it up. I guess there isn't. Back to the thread....
I'd be more interested in hearing what characteristics should NOT be protected classes?
Drug addicts? No, addiction is a disability.
Criminals? BAN THE BOX!
Foreign nationals? Nope, can't discriminate if they're eligible to work here.
Yankees? Well, yes... you can discriminate discriminate against people from New England, but not against people from old England.
Makes perfect sense.
Are you conceding the point that LGBT people have a legitimate reason to want the sort of laws that Hillary and Bernie are offering? Seems that way. It seems that you really want to shift this discussion away from your original point and start to bash civil rights in general as somehow unworkable. Should we focus our arguments on that untenable position now?I'd be more interested in hearing what characteristics should NOT be protected classes?
Drug addicts? No, addiction is a disability.
Criminals? BAN THE BOX!
Foreign nationals? Nope, can't discriminate if they're eligible to work here.
Yankees? Well, yes... you can discriminate discriminate against people from New England, but not against people from old England.
Makes perfect sense.
You say "legitimate" and I say "unnecessary" because they're already covered under the umbrella of sex discrimination.
I've already pointed out why that's not sufficient. You had no rebuttal. You have no unique harms produced by granting the law.
Somewhat blind post here because I didn't read the whole thread but while precedent can change it's extremely unlikely that this one would change. However I can grant that codifying it into law might be a good step.
As for women being paid the same. They are. They are just trained to play victims constantly.
Its interesting to note that this precedent has changed. Up until very recently, the courts ruled that sex discrimination laws don't apply to LGBT issues. A court couldn't find with the original decades of precedent. For myself, I find that fairly unstable ground and hence want a definitive declaration of rights in the law books.
Read the whole thread and some good points being made by both sides of the argument.
My question for you is if men are already a protected class as you say then why does a gay man need another law?
Or the Jury didn't buy an HR guy for the employer's version of the story and correctly awarded damages, including future pay, which adds up quickly.
Does anyone here think they would ever rule in a complainant's favor if the HR guy got to describe their claim? That is why there is a trial and a jury.
What is a bit ironic is that Trad has been on here complaining about lawyers and the EEOC forcing settlements ..... and the anecdotal evidence he brings up is a case that was decided by a JURY in his own county. Yeah, that jury result sure shows the problems and inherent bias against employers by everyone in the system .... right?
Yeah, I'm sure that was what it was. Even so, you post it like you/the employer gave some benefit, instead of giving what was legally required anyways. You posted it to imply some sort of bending-over-backwards for her, which is quite obviously not the case.
Let me guess, this was the WRONG decision, but every time they rule in your favor it is the right one?
Do you feel the same way about juries giving out the death penalty? Any inherent biases there?
I am always impressed by how consistently anti-women you are in this context.
This retort makes no sense. You are the one providing one anecdotal story to show some inherent wide-spread bias.
If I were making a death penalty claim I would point to the countless death penalty cases where the accused was later exonerated.
Funny that you think juries are inherently biased against employers when the demonstrable data shows otherwise.
Well that's what the whole thread has been about. Recently the government has decided that discrimination based on LGBT issues is really just sex discrimination and has always been illegal under a 1964 law. Recent court decisions back that view point. I appreciate this epiphany, but I don't trust it. Prior to this revelation we had decades of courts rejecting this idea. I want the law so that it is clear and my rights are not dependent on favorable interpretations of a law that we all know was never conceived of for protecting LGBT rights. I don't trust judicial activism to forever be on my side. Seeing no negative impact of such a law, I think I should get it even if it's just for peace of mind.
We don't discriminate. We have avenues for employees to go outside of the chain of command and complain about bad managerial behavior. When they do that, they are untouchable and protected by me.
Methods for reaching out to me are on the front inside cover of our Employee Handbook, and posted at various locations in each facility.
I honestly cannot think of a case where we deserved to be charged with discriminatory employment practices had the employee worked with us in good faith to resolve concerns.
As for this particular case, we're talking about a stand-alone sales manager. It is a critical position as she can make or break the entire facility's financial performance. We were losing money hand-over-fist while waiting for her to "get better" and come back to work and do the job. She couldn't do it anymore, due to her mental illness.
How much more do you expect we should have done for her?
Last edited:
What demonstrable data?
In a jury trial, the employer is made out to be an evil, heartless corporation only concerned about profit. And if our lawyer attacks the credibility of the poor employee, then we only confirm the allegation that we're a bunch of big bullies.
You have data showing otherwise?
Said every. single. HR. employee. ever.
This is precisely why there are agencies of oversight, lawyers, judges, and juries. Because if left up to you, you never, ever do anything wrong.
Yes, managers sometimes say or do something stupid, just like employees make mistakes. The law should be about how the employer responds to such transgressions, rather than the totally unreasonable expectation that giving someone managerial authority makes the organization immediately responsible for paying "damages" because that manager made an error in judgment...
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton got this issue right, but that case is too narrowly applied to sexual harassment claims, and should be more broadly applied to general employment discrimination claims.
Western women as a group are most privileged people in the world. Economic class being equal, women of any race are far more privileged then men of any race in this country.
I'm quite tired of some of the most privileged people in existence playing the victim.
Well let's start with this: http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/litigation.cfm , which tends to debunk your claims that this is some sort of practice of such a huge number that every minority, fired individual is a "wallet extractor". 167 suits filed by the EEOC in 2014. You can see the charging ones to even further debunk your claim that this is somehow completely widespread, as there were just under 90,000 total charges that year.
This article, from 2004, showed a trial win rate for plaintiffs under 40%. https://www.google.com/url?url=http...sg=AFQjCNG9ITetA1Kw4qopJkXJ4p7PdOxBGw&cad=rja
That 40% was significantly higher than in previous years, although juries were only allowed after 1991. Employment discrimination plaintiffs win less often than other types of plaintiffs. It is even worse in front of judges where they win something like 20% of cases. Employment discrimination plaintiffs fare far worse in pretrial decisions as well (Summary Judgments) compared to other plaintiffs.
It is from 2004, but it was the first one I pulled up. Unlike your personal "they hate the big-bad employer" theory, this was actual data. Please, feel free to counter this.
So you want employers (say, CEOs, boards, whatever) to be able to blame their managers (literally the people they put in charge of decision-making and hiring/firing) in order to not pay damages to an aggrieved person? Brilliant.
I thought your employer never discriminated?
I don't think it is anti-woman to point these facts out. It's being pro-reality.
I'm not against equal pay for women...I'm just glad it's a myth. If a politician brings this up as an issue...they pretty much lost my vote. It sounds great...but it is made up crap. I'll just continue to leave this here...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/#294351cf4c52
The vast majority of charges that actually state a violation of non-discrimination laws aren't championed by the EEOC. The plaintiffs get a "right to sue" letter and more often than not, reach a confidential settlement that's not tracked by the EEOC at all. So, we don't really know how widespread it is that a charging party receives monetary compensation.
As for all the court statistics, how do those win rates for employment discrimination compare to results from other sorts of civil trials on the federal courts' dockets?
I think it's reasonable to expect aggrieved employees to make a good faith effort to seek resolution internally, if such internal grievance resolution mechanism is available, before being allowed to file a charge.
Man overboard! It's instructive that you must eliminate economic circumstances to arrive at your position, but even if we play that hypothetical game, it's hardly obvious how a woman is far more privileged then men in our society. Somehow I don't hear a lot of men yelling that they wish they were women so that life would be easier or that they could advance more.
That's cute and expected, but do you think her life is easier and more privileged now? Do you think this is a widespread movement? That's hardly obvious either.Caitlyn says, "Hello, there."
And, let me presume, you want each and every employer to make up their own "internal grievance resolution mechanism", and that you wouldn't want those to be challenged either....right?
Because when an employer takes a negative action against you (demotes, re-assigns with lesser pay, fires), you should definitely work within their own invented "mechanisms" instead of seeking redress, because that seems "fair".
"I am firing you for being gay, now if you'd like to contest this, you must have sex with females for the next 30 days". Brilliant.
After the luster wore off of being the greatest Olympian in American history, he was relegated to being a bit player on the Kim Kardashian show, and now she is a big celebrity in her own right again, thanks to the transition.
I don't see how anyone can state she didn't get benefits from this. She's winning awards, had her own show, featured on magazine covers, prime-time interviews. Great career move.
