Here come the quotas..

[Foxfyre]

It is illegal to not hire people because of their race or sex and those laws are enforced.

How are ''those laws ....enforced''?

They are enforced diligently and pretty much without exception and often whether there is any merit to a complaint or not. In the example I previously gave, had that tattooed bedangled and spangled lady filed a complaint that she was not hired because she was female and claimed she was more qualified than the guy I did hire, the authorities would have to look into it. And I very well might have to defend myself even to the point of going to court. If I win in such a case, I'm out my time, court costs, and legal fees. If she wins, she gets all that PLUS whatever the court awards her in lost wages and benefits PLUS I might still be ordered to hire her.

In that case she clearly was not suitable for the job and she did not contest it.


In a reverse discrimination case, the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano showed another side to this issue. In that case the City of New Haven gave promotion tests to all employees who wanted to apply for promotion. Only one black and two Hispanic firemen passed the test, and the three minorities did not score higher than others and would not be promoted. The city threw out the results rather than face a civil rights complaint that two few minorities qualified and therefore the test was unfair and they would just not promote anybody.

The white firefighters who had passed the test and deserved promotion sued. Our new Justice Sotomayor was the judge to hear the case and sided with the City. The Supreme Court overturned her decision and sided with the firefighters who had earned promotion. The Court determined that the test was reasonable, fair, and non discriminatory against any group and the City could not throw out the results just because minorities didn't qualify for promotion.

But that did illustrate just how ridiculous and to what lengths employers are going to to avoid those kinds of problems.

so, it is enforced if the person applying for the job, if she files a complaint and can prove that she is more qualified than the other person they hired? who pays the lawyers involved? the person applying for the job? and how does she know what the qualifications of the stranger they hired instead of her?

i don't call THAT enforcement fox....

So what would be enforcement to you? If an employee is denied a work comp claim he has to file a petition in order to have his complaint heard.

If somebody damages my car, I have to file a police report and complaint in order to have the damages paid. If I have to go to court, I will be petitioning for court costs and attorney fees in addition to damages.

And if somebody feels they have been illegally discriminated against, he or she needs to demand restitution. Who should file such a complaint other than the person offended?

Do you want law enforcement personnel standing by and looking at every application and hearing every interview or supervising every proficiency test to ensure that nobody who is female or a minority gets a raw deal? Should every employer go through some kind of EEOC audit every month? Every year. (Actually some do or at least used to.)

Those filing frivolous claims of course should have to pay their own attorney fees if they hire a lawyer. Otherwise all the applicants not hired could make the employer's life a living hell and break the bank with multiple lawsuits.

As I said in my post, which you must have missed, if the employee turns out to have a legitimate case and receives a favorable ruling, the employer will be paying all expenses.

And believe me, in ALL these cases, the courts are almost 100% sympathetic to the employee more than the employer if the employee has any case at all.

 

[Big Fitz]

Anti-Discrimination laws on civilians violate both property rights (which have been violated beyond belief already) and our freedom of association. For if you have two candidates for a job you have to hire for, one is black the other is white, and you choose the white person, you are called a racist. You have done nothing wrong but choose the candidate you wanted, and have sacrificed nothing for your business, but yet now, in the minds of some, you are a criminal.

Is that really right either?

 

[Charles_Main]

If something is referenced, it's understood that anyone who wants to argue it will actually look at it.

Not make the person who references it provide it in it's entirety because the person reading the post is too lazy to actually look at it before replying.

I can't find it allie....and I am on my third google search....if she had mentioned the name of the bill and which version then maybe it would be easier to find....? I have no idea how to get to the bill she is referencing or the section 342....SHE SHOULD HAVE linked it....imho, unless she really didn't want any of us to easily find it?

Very few of the media sources are giving the bill number because I think very few want us to read this bill. If we don't read it they can describe it any way they want.

But the Bill is H.R. 4173. You can find the government summary and I believe the full context of the original bill and House/Senate comparison here:
House Financial Services Committee

WOW someone that gets the Media Bias. It is usually subtle. Not clear cut. Like the fact that they do not report a Bills number, or how they have not reported on the Black Panther Case at all. (cept fox) There Bias lies mostly with what they choose to and not to cover and then with how they cover it.

 

[Charles_Main]

They are enforced diligently and pretty much without exception and often whether there is any merit to a complaint or not. In the example I previously gave, had that tattooed bedangled and spangled lady filed a complaint that she was not hired because she was female and claimed she was more qualified than the guy I did hire, the authorities would have to look into it. And I very well might have to defend myself even to the point of going to court. If I win in such a case, I'm out my time, court costs, and legal fees. If she wins, she gets all that PLUS whatever the court awards her in lost wages and benefits PLUS I might still be ordered to hire her.

In that case she clearly was not suitable for the job and she did not contest it.


In a reverse discrimination case, the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano showed another side to this issue. In that case the City of New Haven gave promotion tests to all employees who wanted to apply for promotion. Only one black and two Hispanic firemen passed the test, and the three minorities did not score higher than others and would not be promoted. The city threw out the results rather than face a civil rights complaint that two few minorities qualified and therefore the test was unfair and they would just not promote anybody.

The white firefighters who had passed the test and deserved promotion sued. Our new Justice Sotomayor was the judge to hear the case and sided with the City. The Supreme Court overturned her decision and sided with the firefighters who had earned promotion. The Court determined that the test was reasonable, fair, and non discriminatory against any group and the City could not throw out the results just because minorities didn't qualify for promotion.

But that did illustrate just how ridiculous and to what lengths employers are going to to avoid those kinds of problems.

so, it is enforced if the person applying for the job, if she files a complaint and can prove that she is more qualified than the other person they hired? who pays the lawyers involved? the person applying for the job? and how does she know what the qualifications of the stranger they hired instead of her?

i don't call THAT enforcement fox....

So what would be enforcement to you? If an employee is denied a work comp claim he has to file a petition in order to have his complaint heard.

If somebody damages my car, I have to file a police report and complaint in order to have the damages paid. If I have to go to court, I will be petitioning for court costs and attorney fees in addition to damages.

And if somebody feels they have been illegally discriminated against, he or she needs to demand restitution. Who should file such a complaint other than the person offended?

Do you want law enforcement personnel standing by and looking at every application and hearing every interview or supervising every proficiency test to ensure that nobody who is female or a minority gets a raw deal? Should every employer go through some kind of EEOC audit every month? Every year. (Actually some do or at least used to.)

Those filing frivolous claims of course should have to pay their own attorney fees if they hire a lawyer. Otherwise all the applicants not hired could make the employer's life a living hell and break the bank with multiple lawsuits.

As I said in my post, which you must have missed, if the employee turns out to have a legitimate case and receives a favorable ruling, the employer will be paying all expenses.

And believe me, in ALL these cases, the courts are almost 100% sympathetic to the employee more than the employer if the employee has any case at all.

Ah so when someone is killing another person, and someone else calls the cops, and they come and stop it. They were not enforcing the law.

IC

Oh the logic lol

 

[FA_Q2]

It is illegal to not hire people because of their race or sex and those laws are enforced.

How are ''those laws ....enforced''?

They are enforced diligently and pretty much without exception and often whether there is any merit to a complaint or not. In the example I previously gave, had that tattooed bedangled and spangled lady filed a complaint that she was not hired because she was female and claimed she was more qualified than the guy I did hire, the authorities would have to look into it. And I very well might have to defend myself even to the point of going to court. If I win in such a case, I'm out my time, court costs, and legal fees. If she wins, she gets all that PLUS whatever the court awards her in lost wages and benefits PLUS I might still be ordered to hire her.

In that case she clearly was not suitable for the job and she did not contest it.


In a reverse discrimination case, the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano showed another side to this issue. In that case the City of New Haven gave promotion tests to all employees who wanted to apply for promotion. Only one black and two Hispanic firemen passed the test, and the three minorities did not score higher than others and would not be promoted. The city threw out the results rather than face a civil rights complaint that two few minorities qualified and therefore the test was unfair and they would just not promote anybody.

The white firefighters who had passed the test and deserved promotion sued. Our new Justice Sotomayor was the judge to hear the case and sided with the City. The Supreme Court overturned her decision and sided with the firefighters who had earned promotion. The Court determined that the test was reasonable, fair, and non discriminatory against any group and the City could not throw out the results just because minorities didn't qualify for promotion.

But that did illustrate just how ridiculous and to what lengths employers are going to to avoid those kinds of problems.

so, it is enforced if the person applying for the job, if she files a complaint and can prove that she is more qualified than the other person they hired? who pays the lawyers involved? the person applying for the job? and how does she know what the qualifications of the stranger they hired instead of her?

i don't call THAT enforcement fox....

Then how would YOU enforce those laws then?

 

[The Rabbi]

No. Actually the laws are enforced either by individual suit or by class action. All the plaintiff must do is prove that the company has a statistically deficient number of whatever protected class they want. They do not need to prove intent to discriminate. Mere result is sufficient.