Recent posts

#21

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis GOP?

Last post by HVC - Today at 04:57:33 PM

I don't actually know what Dguller is but based on your obsession I'm now guessing he's Jewish.

Tweet: "all Zionists are too dumb for office jobs, they shouldn't be be hired, and definitely shouldn't be promoted"

Tweet: " I can't stand to be around Zionists"

Tweet: " kill all Zionists"

"Your honour my racism antizionism was not the reason I fired Dguller.  You are just trying to stifle my legitimate criticism of Israel.  Free, Free Palestine"

Who would the judge side with?   Who do YOU side with now?

I'm 1/16 Jewish , does that make you like me now pretty please? Or at least 1/16th of me

#22

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis GOP?

Last post by HVC - Today at 04:56:57 PM

Fine ignore the first tweet. Do you still think a judge would believe your boss with the other two tweets floating around. What proof do you personally need to be convinced someone's racism lead to firing an employee? the boss writing "I'm firing you because you're Eastern European, have a good day"? I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong (minsky?) but showing someone has clearly racist views would offer more then enough evidence (reasonable doubt? Iffy on the proper terms) in a civil case. If the law talking dudes disagree with me then fine, I'll concede.

In discrimination cases don't you just need to show different treatment for you v another worker? So if there is another worker without the protected characteristic who has not been fired with the same or worse performance then it would be a claim.

I assume Dguller isn't the only employee

I'm not an expert on this area but I know that in employment law in the UK firing someone involves a lot of record keeping about reports, conversations with someone about their performance, performance management plans etc and more precisely to avoid discrimination and wrongful dismissal claims.

I don't know much about how easy it is to fire someone in the us, I assume a lot easier since it's at will. Hell even in Canada it's not that hard. I've been involved in several (somehow accounting always gets roped into HR duties for some god foresaken reason). Unless I've done some horrible legal mistakes in my last two companies all we really needed was to give minimum severance. Only time we needed a stack of paperwork was unions. Or I guess if we wanted to withhold severance for firing with cause but that's not worth the headache. You pay more in lawyers fees. Did get sued twice for wrongful dismissal. Won both. We did have some backup, but didn't bother firing for cause.

#23

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis GOP?

Last post by Razgovory - Today at 04:55:46 PM

I don't actually know what Dguller is but based on your obsession I'm now guessing he's Jewish.

Tweet: "all Zionists are too dumb for office jobs, they shouldn't be be hired, and definitely shouldn't be promoted"

Tweet: " I can't stand to be around Zionists"

Tweet: " kill all Zionists"

"Your honour my racism antizionism was not the reason I fired Dguller.  You are just trying to stifle my legitimate criticism of Israel.  Free, Free Palestine"

Who would the judge side with?   Who do YOU side with now?

#24

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis GOP?

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 04:54:07 PM

So your belief rests on your view that once in an office environment a racist person would not act on their racism? I don't agree with that view, but at least now I get where you're coming from. But you didn't answer the part about would you sue if you were fired by a racist boss (I'll concede to your view that you don't think they'd be racist to you at work, so let's say he were just fired because he didn't like you for non racist reasons). That's the crux of it from an employers position. If you have proof they're racist you've basically won the case (unless they've got good cause like stealing )

I would be very surprised if employment law really worked like that.

It partially works like that.

Plaintiffs in an employment discrimination case have to establish a prima facie case. What HVC described is basically the elements of that case: (1) membership in protected class, (2) employed or qualified for the job, (3) adverse employment action, and (4) different treatment from others not in the protected clauss.

If the prima facie case is stated, then the burden shifts to the employer to identify some proper, non-discriminatory reason for the employment action.  If the employer can't do that, case is over and the employer loses.

If the employer comes up with a reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed neutral reason was pretextual.  Preponderance is just "more likely than not"

Proof that the person making the firing decision is racist would be sufficient to win such a case, because a reasonable juror could infer that a racist person would make employment decisions out of improper discriminatory motivations.  The employer would likely need very compelling evidence that the decision was made for some other reason to prevail.

Accordingly, having openly racist people in a position to make hiring and firing decisions is a foolish move for a company because of the heightened liability exposure.

#25

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis GOP?

Last post by DGuller - Today at 04:51:37 PM

Fine ignore the first tweet. Do you still think a judge would believe your boss with the other two tweets floating around. What proof do you personally need to be convinced someone's racism lead to firing an employee? the boss writing "I'm firing you because you're Eastern European, have a good day"? I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong (minsky?) but showing someone has clearly racist views would offer more then enough evidence (reasonable doubt? Iffy on the proper terms) in a civil case. If the law talking dudes disagree with me then fine, I'll concede.

In general legal matters are more that just about beliefs, there is evidentiary standard.  I think some of the lawyers here would know better what it is.

#26

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis GOP?

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 04:48:30 PM

That said, the Supreme Court's decisions in cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop has undermined anti-discrimination law in the US by using the Free Exercise Clause as a loophole.

I saw Pam Bondi's take that apparently this is the law but also it's against Federal law for a print shop to refuse to print a poster of Charlie Kirk which seems a bit mad.

FWIW it reminded me of the UK gay cake case - because it kind of gets to this difference. It was a bakery in Northern Ireland run by devout evangelical Protestants that refused to make a cake supporting gay marriage for a gay rights activism group. They won their case in the Supreme Court on the grounds that a cake supporting gay marriage was political and they were entitled to their beliefs in rejecting that - but they would not have been allowed to refuse make a cake for a gay customer or a gay wedding because that would be discrimination. I think the court got it right - and given the Northern Irish context had it gone the other way presumably you could also compel Protestant bakers to make "up the Ra" cakes and Catholic bakers to do a line of "no surrender" cookies which would have done wonders for inter-community relations no doubt.

It sounds like Pam Bondi is proposing that the US has reached almost the opposite conclusion.

Fine ignore the first tweet. Do you still think a judge would believe your boss with the other two tweets floating around. What proof do you personally need to be convinced someone's racism lead to firing an employee? the boss writing "I'm firing you because you're Eastern European, have a good day"? I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong (minsky?) but showing someone has clearly racist views would offer more then enough evidence (reasonable doubt? Iffy on the proper terms) in a civil case. If the law talking dudes disagree with me then fine, I'll concede.

In discrimination cases don't you just need to show different treatment for you v another worker? So if there is another worker without the protected characteristic who has not been fired with the same or worse performance then it would be a claim.

I'm not an expert on this area but I know that in employment law in the UK firing someone involves a lot of record keeping about reports, conversations with someone about their performance, performance management plans etc and more precisely to avoid discrimination and wrongful dismissal claims.

#27

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis GOP?

Last post by HVC - Today at 04:47:58 PM

So your belief rests on your view that once in an office environment a racist person would not act on their racism? I don't agree with that view, but at least now I get where you're coming from. But you didn't answer the part about would you sue if you were fired by a racist boss (I'll concede to your view that you don't think they'd be racist to you at work, so let's say he were just fired because he didn't like you for non racist reasons). That's the crux of it from an employers position. If you have proof they're racist you've basically won the case (unless they've got good cause like stealing )

I would be very surprised if employment law really worked like that.  You don't automatically convict people of murder because they murdered someone before.  I don't see why one would automatically convict someone of discriminatory act just because they've been found to be racist before (without even being proven to have acted on it).

Tweet: "all Eastern Europeans are too dumb for office jobs, they shouldn't be be hired, and definitely shouldn't be promoted"

Tweet: " I can't stand to be around Eastern Europeans"

Tweet: " kill all Eastern Europeans"

"Your honour my racism was not the reason I fired Dguller"

Who would the judge side with?

Man, why are you bringing up "Eastern Europeans", over and over again?  There is a much more obvious form of racism that DG would be subject to.

I don't actually know what Dguller is but based on your obsession I'm now guessing he's Jewish.

#28

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis GOP?

Last post by Razgovory - Today at 04:46:51 PM

So your belief rests on your view that once in an office environment a racist person would not act on their racism? I don't agree with that view, but at least now I get where you're coming from. But you didn't answer the part about would you sue if you were fired by a racist boss (I'll concede to your view that you don't think they'd be racist to you at work, so let's say he were just fired because he didn't like you for non racist reasons). That's the crux of it from an employers position. If you have proof they're racist you've basically won the case (unless they've got good cause like stealing )

I would be very surprised if employment law really worked like that.  You don't automatically convict people of murder because they murdered someone before.  I don't see why one would automatically convict someone of discriminatory act just because they've been found to be racist before (without even being proven to have acted on it).

Tweet: "all Eastern Europeans are too dumb for office jobs, they shouldn't be be hired, and definitely shouldn't be promoted"

Tweet: " I can't stand to be around Eastern Europeans"

Tweet: " kill all Eastern Europeans"

"Your honour my racism was not the reason I fired Dguller"

Who would the judge side with?

Man, why are you bringing up "Eastern Europeans", over and over again?  There is a much more obvious form of racism that DG would be subject to.

#29

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis GOP?

Last post by DGuller - Today at 04:46:02 PM

Civil rights act bars private sector discrimination based on race in employment decisions and public accomodations (hotels, common carriers etc). 68 Act extended that prohibition to housing.  Discrimination is not barred in other private contexts under federal law.  Private clubs can discriminate on the basis of race or any other basis, as long as they don't take public money and are consistently closed to non-members.  However, many states passed laws that expand the accommodation right to include private clubs as well.

That said, the Supreme Court's decisions in cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop has undermined anti-discrimination law in the US by using the Free Exercise Clause as a loophole.

I think you're getting too technical, even some lawyers here don't understand the difference between discriminatory acts and the thought crime of being racist.  We're going to need some time to process that difference before we get into the weeds of what kind of discrimination is covered and not covered.

#30

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis GOP?

Last post by HVC - Today at 04:45:58 PM

So your belief rests on your view that once in an office environment a racist person would not act on their racism? I don't agree with that view, but at least now I get where you're coming from. But you didn't answer the part about would you sue if you were fired by a racist boss (I'll concede to your view that you don't think they'd be racist to you at work, so let's say he were just fired because he didn't like you for non racist reasons). That's the crux of it from an employers position. If you have proof they're racist you've basically won the case (unless they've got good cause like stealing )

I would be very surprised if employment law really worked like that.  You don't automatically convict people of murder because they murdered someone before.  I don't see why one would automatically convict someone of discriminatory act just because they've been found to be racist before (without even being proven to have acted on it).

Tweet: "all Eastern Europeans are too dumb for office jobs, they shouldn't be be hired, and definitely shouldn't be promoted"

Tweet: " I can't stand to be around Eastern Europeans"

Tweet: " kill all Eastern Europeans"

"Your honour my racism was not the reason I fired Dguller"

Who would the judge side with?

Again your example of racism sneaks work right into the middle of it.  I'm starting to think that it's hard to come up with a defensible hypothetical if you don't do that.

Fine ignore the first tweet. Do you still think a judge would believe your boss with the other two tweets floating around. What proof do you personally need to be convinced someone's racism lead to firing an employee? the boss writing "I'm firing you because you're Eastern European, have a good day"? I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong (minsky?) but showing someone has clearly racist views would offer more then enough evidence (reasonable doubt? Iffy on the proper terms) in a civil case. If the law talking dudes disagree with me then fine, I'll concede.