Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

thebigcheese wrote:The boys who would play soccer indoors. Ugh.

Are you sure it wasn't dodge ball? My freshman year, the RA of the guys' dorm sponsored a dodge ball tournament indoors. I'm not sure it was sanctioned by the higher-ups, though.

Pretty sure it was soccer. Then again, it was like five years ago...my memory could be playing tricks on me.

ahem. wrote:I'm not sure it was sanctioned by the higher-ups, though.

Yeah...I highly doubt that.

TheBlackSheep wrote:

Marduk wrote:It is also now illegal in the state of Utah, as well as many other states, to discriminate in housing based on sexual orientation.

I just wanted to point out that this is not, in fact, true. Thanks to Equality Utah's amazing "10 in 2010" campaign, sexual orientation and gender identity are now protected classes in ten Utah "entities" (Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Park City, Logan, West Valley City, Summit County, Taylorsville, Murray, Moab, and Grand County, which passed its laws with just days to spare!). This means that only about 25% of Utah's citizens are protected from housing or workplace discrimination based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.

And hey, in case you didn't notice, neither Utah County nor Provo is on that list, so the renter in question would be perfectly within his rights to refuse to rent to a gay, bisexual, or transgender person. Which, if you ask me, is pretty sick.

State Senator McAdams has said he'll bring up an anti-discrimination measure this session, and according to a poll last January 2/3 of Utah residents support such a measure, but as the new House Speaker said, "We have been very resistant in the past to doing anything that might make sexual orientation a protected class. I don’t think that has changed."

Anyway, the point is that the state of Utah as a whole has not made discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity illegal.

What I find interesting about this is that I don't believe I've ever seen 'straight only' housing advertised, whereas I have seen a number of facilities that were 'gay only'. If your law applies to Californa as well as SLC then I'd say it has opened up more options for straight individuals than LGBT ones. (Especially as, as LJ pointed out, bigoted landlords can usually claim some other reason for a refusal, so public restrictions are the most likely to be affected.)

Also, I could easily see homosexuality in housing causing similar concerns the Clinton administration had with the military: efficiency is highest when sexual tension is lowest. In the past, that has been a simple his-and-hers matter, and you can theoretically get away with your first homosexual individual placed in the opposite gender's barracks, but where do you place the next?

but i think the idea that there will even be sexual tension in situations like that is stupid. i lived in co-ed dorms with co-ed bathrooms all four years of college, and it was totally fine.

in terms of proving discrimination, it can be more hassle than it's worth. my mother sued the FAA and our local airport for discrimination based on race and it took her the better part of a decade to prove and win her case. most people don't have the money, resources, or time for that sort of thing, especially when it comes to housing since there are many places to live where your landlord won't be a bigot.

Imogen wrote: in terms of proving discrimination, it can be more hassle than it's worth. my mother sued the FAA and our local airport for discrimination based on race and it took her the better part of a decade to prove and win her case. most people don't have the money, resources, or time for that sort of thing, especially when it comes to housing since there are many places to live where your landlord won't be a bigot.

See, things like this make me wonder if anti-discrimination laws in housing are really accomplishing anything. And if you do win a lawsuit against a landlord, what are you going to do? Move into the place with the landlord that you just took to court and who you know is prejudiced against you because of your race or sexual orientation? That sounds pretty awful to me. Not that I think we should get rid of anti-discrimination laws, I just think there needs to be something else that actually solves the problem. I have no idea what that would be, though.

NerdGirl wrote:

Imogen wrote: in terms of proving discrimination, it can be more hassle than it's worth. my mother sued the FAA and our local airport for discrimination based on race and it took her the better part of a decade to prove and win her case. most people don't have the money, resources, or time for that sort of thing, especially when it comes to housing since there are many places to live where your landlord won't be a bigot.

See, things like this make me wonder if anti-discrimination laws in housing are really accomplishing anything. And if you do win a lawsuit against a landlord, what are you going to do? Move into the place with the landlord that you just took to court and who you know is prejudiced against you because of your race or sexual orientation? That sounds pretty awful to me. Not that I think we should get rid of anti-discrimination laws, I just think there needs to be something else that actually solves the problem. I have no idea what that would be, though.

Most likely individuals would seek monetary compensation. In addition to economic damages, you'd likely get pain and suffering for the emotional toll the event could take on an individual.

Discrimination is very difficult to prove. I imagine in the housing context it would be even more difficult. My sense is that housing discrimination laws were meant to break down institutionalized discrimination, recognizing that covert individual discrimination would still happen. You do not see ANY apartments advertising "Whites Only." Individuals using other pretexts for actual discrimination is deplorable, but I think the risk of penalizing individuals who have non-discriminatory motives is just as serious a concern.

For instance, my dad applied for a position. He was hired. An African-American woman under his supervision, who had also applied for his position, filed an employment discrimination suit for not receiving the job. The woman had a history (five to seven years worth) of sub-standard evaluations related to her work quality. She ended up filing suit against my dad as well for his treatment of her after his hiring. Eventually, the agency he worked for just acquiesced by promoting her. Obviously I am getting this story through my dad's bias. Still, I've never known my dad to be anything other than totally respectful of all people, regardless of their race. The entire ordeal was a nightmare that delayed my dad starting his job by seven months (costing him $50-60k worth of income) as well as having to hire a lawyer. I'm not saying this as a "boo-hoo" story for my Dad, rather to recognize that the indefinite nature of discrimination causes difficulties for those on the receiving end of accusations.

I think the major effect of the anti-discrimination laws is intimidation. A person with an apartment to rent fears being sued in court. Even if he is innocent it will cost him a lot of time and money to defend himself. There are organizations out there that are eager to promote the cause of anti-discrimination and will help back financially the person who claims he or she was discriminated against. So, to afford the appearance of discrimination, or to avoid the hassle of a lawsuit people will rent to the protected class even when a more suitable renter has made an offer.

The same is true in the employment sector. In order to avoid the stigma of looking discriminatory, and to avoid the costly court battles, employers will give preference to someone in the protected class. I've seen that happen time after time.

No doubt the law serves to prevent real discrimination by instilling fear in those who would discriminate. But it has the unintended consequence of giving favored status to those who claim discrimination.

vorpal blade wrote:The same is true in the employment sector. In order to avoid the stigma of looking discriminatory, and to avoid the costly court battles, employers will give preference to someone in the protected class. I've seen that happen time after time.

This happened at my internship in the fall, and it drove me absolutely crazy. Half of the people working there should've been fired a long time ago for disciplinary issues, so I brought it up with the supervisor, and she told me very explicitly that she was afraid of discrimination lawsuits because they had a lot of minorities and vulnerable people on staff. How pathetic is that? What kind of system are we running here?

thebigcheese wrote:

vorpal blade wrote:The same is true in the employment sector. In order to avoid the stigma of looking discriminatory, and to avoid the costly court battles, employers will give preference to someone in the protected class. I've seen that happen time after time.

This happened at my internship in the fall, and it drove me absolutely crazy. Half of the people working there should've been fired a long time ago for disciplinary issues, so I brought it up with the supervisor, and she told me very explicitly that she was afraid of discrimination lawsuits because they had a lot of minorities and vulnerable people on staff. How pathetic is that? What kind of system are we running here?

those people take anti-discrimination laws too far. they're scared. but if you take the time to properly document a person's professional deficiencies before you fire them, they have almost NO grounds for suits of that type. my roommate is completely meticulous in her job as HR and always leaves a long paper trail. her company hasn't even had to pay unemployment because she is so detailed in her notes, emails, and write ups. if you're HR person is any good, you'll have no problems proving there was no discrimination, thus placing the burden on the accuser.

my mother was truly discriminated against based on her race and gender, so i'm glad she won.

I'd just like to note that the same is true of any unlawful termination, not just discrimination based ones. Any state that has anti-discrimination or anti-wrongful termination laws on the books must have well-documented firings. But as long as the company can prove that the termination (or not hiring in the first place) did not violate any of those laws, then you're in the clear.

Honestly, from what I've seen, claiming that they fear discrimination lawsuits is an argument that really doesn't hold water, and is a straw man for another issue entirely.

Marduk wrote:Honestly, from what I've seen, claiming that they fear discrimination lawsuits is an argument that really doesn't hold water, and is a straw man for another issue entirely.

Are you discriminating against straw men, here? Are you anti-straw-ist?

Yes. Yes I am. They have no place in the workplace, or really, any place.

Marduk, I fail to see how you can simply dismiss actual cases observed by Wired, thebigcheese, myself, and others by labeling our observations "arguments," and "straw man."

I think what you and Imogen have to realize is that you stand to lose a great deal if a lawsuit is filed against you, even if you have an airtight case that is as well documented as it can be. Sure, you are very likely to win the case, but in the process of fighting the case you are going to lose tens of thousands of dollars, if not much, much more, in court costs and lawyer fees. You can lose your good name and position within the company even if you win the case. Your promotion might be delayed while the case is being fought in court. Your company may get bad publicity or go out of business, even though it is completely innocent of the false charges brought against you. Your only legal recourse is to counter sue after you have won your case. That will cost additional tens of thousands or even millions of dollars, and you will have to prove that the person who filed the discrimination suit knew he or she had absolutely no case. That is hard to prove if the person just claims he felt discriminated against. So lots of people take the easy way out and settle out of court, or just take steps to make sure to promote the protected class, or give them whatever they demand.

Fear of lawsuits, whether the lawsuits have any merit or not, is very real in this country. No grounds are required for filing a lawsuit. How quickly your case is dismissed depends on how good your lawyer is.

The use of the word "argument" wasn't intended to be an attack. Whatever reasoning you provide for ANY action taken can be defined as an argument. Let's say I offer you a hamburger and you refuse. I ask you why and you say you're not hungry. I say "ok, that's a valid argument."

Here's why I think it is a straw man. Any company worth anything is not going to make hiring or firing decisions by caprice. That means any decision made is going to be made with thought, study, and analysis, and there will almost always be a paper trail regarding this.

It is against the law, as it should be, in many states to dismiss an employee without reason. This works in the favor of both company and individual, as the individual doesn't need to be worried if the boss "likes" him or if she isn't fitting in around the workplace. Both company and employee can simply focus on doing the job. Let's say you fire an employee because you don't like him or her. Should you expect them to level a lawsuit against you? Yes, it would be very likely, and they'd have good reason.

Now lets say that same employee is about to be fired, but because they are chronically late, and it significantly affects their performance. After several warnings, verbal and written, they are fired in accordance with policy. Should you expect them to level a lawsuit against you? It is much less likely, as they know they have no reason. If they do, yes, it will cost you, but much, much less than if they win, and the fees and other costs are likely to be paid by your insurance.

Let's take the same situation with an employee of a different race. If you fire them without reason, they are likely to level a lawsuit against you, and win. If you fire them with reason, they are unlikely to level a lawsuit against you, and if they do, they will most likely lose and the fees and other costs will be paid by the insurance.

This is why I say it is a straw man argument. If you have reason to dismiss someone, and you can PROVE that, then you ought to dismiss them. What race they are really has nothing to do with it. If you are claiming that you don't want to fire someone because you fear lawsuits, then you don't know how to do your job as a manager, plain and simple, otherwise you'd go through the steps, get documentation, write-ups, etc. and fire them, safe in the understanding that you do so fully justified.

Not to cause any offense, but most of these "actual cases observed" are secondary and anecdotal. We're hearing a story about what Wired's father told him that he was told, the story we got from Vorpal was "I've seen it time after time" which references nothing in specific, and Thebigcheese claims that half of her coworkers were minorities with disciplinary problems sufficient for termination, yet an immediate supervisor (not an HR representative or even a manager) refused to do anything about it. You'll forgive me if I don't find any of these particularly convincing. (As an entire aside, the most egregious infraction of workplace ethics I see from Thebigcheese's story isn't that minorities wouldn't be fired for fear of lawsuits, its that a supervisor would discuss disciplinary action against other employees with someone at the same level)

yeah thebigcheese's manager has questionable ethics that would get them fired at my old place of work.

texas is an at-will state, so anyone can be fired at any time for any reason and may or may not be able to do anything about it. my coworker's husband was fired six months from retirement for a minor infraction (that his supervisor was involved in. but the supervisor was not fired) but he couldn't fight it because of our state laws. an he was probably fired instead of given a warning because it was cheaper to fire him. is this age discrimination? i believe it was a factor in his firing. do they have to prove it was a just firing? nope. they don't, which i think is a huge issue. if you're going to endanger my livelihood, i want to know why, and i think i should get sufficient warning and opportunity to correct my mistakes.

i agree with marduk's whole statement. only an idiot manager takes anti-discrimination to extreme measures, like keeping on people who aren't performing well. that is a person with no real understanding of law, HR ethical practices, or common sense.

Marduk wrote:Yes. Yes I am. They have no place in the workplace, or really, any place.

Their place is in the fields, working from sun up to sundown, though they don't seem to actually do much of anything.

Lazy strawmen.

Your first argument was better:

Marduk wrote:Honestly, from what I've seen....

Tao wrote:

Marduk wrote:Yes. Yes I am. They have no place in the workplace, or really, any place.

Their place is in the fields, working from sun up to sundown, though they don't seem to actually do much of anything.

Lazy strawmen.

they're not lazy! they're very busy.....doing stuff and scaring small children.

Imogen wrote:is this age discrimination? i believe it was a factor in his firing.

Age discrimination is actually legal.

One other factor in avoiding anti-discriminatory suits, in addition to leaving a paper trail, is to fire an employee in a respectful, dignified manner. A NY Times article discusses this:

Trudy Steinfeld, the executive director for the Wasserman Center for Career Development at New York University, says that good managers in businesses of any size should be documenting problem areas and sharing that information with employees along with goals for improvement. If they don't meet those goals in a timely way, employees should be aware they will be dismissed.

"Sometimes people are afraid of confrontation," Steinfeld said. "Employees don't know they are making tragic mistakes and haven't been given any warnings. Some smaller employers get annoyed with someone, and there's a knee-jerk reaction to fire the employee."

Steinfeld says that a worker who is fired in a hasty manner may be more likely to seek out a lawyer for retribution. She recommends that small businesses adopt practices like a three-month probation period and institute welcome-aboard programs that help new employees acclimate.

Firing a minority employee for "continual poor performance" resulted in a racial discrimination lawsuit that KSK eventually won, but it dragged on for more than a year, costing the company more than $100,000.

Lawrence Lorber, an employment lawyer with Proskauer Rose in Washington, says firing employees with dignity is important both to prevent a lawsuit and to preserve an employee's self-esteem.

"Employees don't know they are making tragic mistakes and haven't been given any warnings."

This one is important. Going back to that stupid internship I mentioned earlier, I was working on this big project with a small team of interns. The supervisor was pretty uninvolved in the whole thing, and she pretty much left us to our own devices. Then, on our last week in the office, she was like, "Oh, by the way, the project you were working on was totally misguided, and it didn't meet any of my expectations. Not a single one."

Um...what?

Prior to that conversation, I thought we were doing a really great job. Why didn't she tell us that before? She gave us absolutely no feedback during the whole three months. I left that internship feeling super confused, and even though we all worked pretty hard, I was too scared to use her for a reference.