But I Went to Harvard Law School!

[William Joyce]

This is too hilarious.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1196935479196

 

[William Joyce]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1196935479196

Yet you appear to suck, big time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

She is an idiot. So what? It is funny she lost, but it happems all the time when people are as obviously nutso as she is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Same story you posted in the law forum.

 

[jillian]

That's because he loves spewing racist garbage.

And, don't tell him, but with the way the anti-discrimination laws have been eviscerated, it almost wouldn't have mattered what the facts of the case were.

 

[William Joyce]

That's because he loves spewing racist garbage.

And, don't tell him, but with the way the anti-discrimination laws have been eviscerated, it almost wouldn't have mattered what the facts of the case were.

Huh? What's "racist garbage" about the story? It's a series of facts. Like Fred says, "facts can't be racist." And are you suggesting that this woman was discriminated against? I know you didn't read the story.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's because he loves spewing racist garbage.

And, don't tell him, but with the way the anti-discrimination laws have been eviscerated, it almost wouldn't have mattered what the facts of the case were.

Ohh I see now your claiming our laws are racist, sure thing Jillian.

 

[jillian]

Ohh I see now your claiming our laws are racist, sure thing Jillian.

who said the laws are racist?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

who said the laws are racist?

Ohh I see they just are not any good? Now I wonder who THAT helps?

 

[William Joyce]

Same story you posted in the law forum.

Oh, crap - can someone kill the other one? My bad. This one is so damn funny I meant to post it to the companion board, the mention of which I realize is slighly controversial.

 

[Diuretic]

It seems to me that a lawyer who gets sacked isn't going to put one over a judge if there are allegations about sub-standard professional conduct...I mean...the judge is going to know all the tricks right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It seems to me that a lawyer who gets sacked isn't going to put one over a judge if there are allegations about sub-standard professional conduct...I mean...the judge is going to know all the tricks right?

According to Jillian our laws are so weak she never had a chance, never mind the evidence cited, the reasons explained and the obvious moronic behavior documented even before she went to work at the second place.

 

[midcan5]

While William is a hardcore racist this situation poses a real pain in the....

Years ago I had to attend this diversity class in which they tested you on how diverse you were and how you would operate in difference situations. Like all this stuff, some had value, but certain pieces were pretty much nonsense. I wish I could remember the company that did it. Funny how some businesses can make money in corporate America teaching what should be common sense. In the end it covers them from law suits such as noted.

Anyway they had this one exercise in which you had to pick the person you would promote based on the characteristics they presented. The correct answer was a Black women who had qualities there was no way in hell I would want to work with or for me. Anyone who works in a group knows how complicated that can be, and as you go up the food chain everyone thinks they are minor gods. What I found sort of amazing about the selection of this loud mouth was some then changed their mind and thought, yes, that is correct, I now see why! Damn, reminded me Stanley Milgram's experiments for sure.

 

[William Joyce]

While William is a hardcore racist this situation poses a real pain in the....

Years ago I had to attend this diversity class in which they tested you on how diverse you were and how you would operate in difference situations. Like all this stuff, some had value, but certain pieces were pretty much nonsense. I wish I could remember the company that did it. Funny how some businesses can make money in corporate America teaching what should be common sense. In the end it covers them from law suits such as noted.

Anyway they had this one exercise in which you had to pick the person you would promote based on the characteristics they presented. The correct answer was a Black women who had qualities there was no way in hell I would want to work with or for me. Anyone who works in a group knows how complicated that can be, and as you go up the food chain everyone thinks they are minor gods. What I found sort of amazing about the selection of this loud mouth was some then changed their mind and thought, yes, that is correct, I now see why! Damn, reminded me Stanley Milgram's experiments for sure.

There was once a "diversity" class in which a white male was sulking in the back. The black teacher called him out. The white male explained he was sad because his father had died that week. Black teacher says, "Well, that's one less racist in the world."

True story.

 

[pegwinn]

That's because he loves spewing racist garbage.

And, don't tell him, but with the way the anti-discrimination laws have been eviscerated, it almost wouldn't have mattered what the facts of the case were.

How have the laws been eviserated? I'm a layman so please type slowly

It seems to me that a lawyer who gets sacked isn't going to put one over a judge if there are allegations about sub-standard professional conduct...I mean...the judge is going to know all the tricks right?

And that sir, is that. Unless there is further information available it appears that her professional conduct and bearing were both documented in more than one locale by more than one supervisor.

According to Jillian our laws are so weak she never had a chance, never mind the evidence cited, the reasons explained and the obvious moronic behavior documented even before she went to work at the second place.

I want Jillian to expand on that comment before I put words in her mouth. Personally I like Texas. Here, the employer can hire and fire at will. Which is how it should be.

There was once a "diversity" class in which a white male was sulking in the back. The black teacher called him out. The white male explained he sad because his father had died that week. Black teacher says, "Well, that's one less racist in the world."

True story.

The teacher needs an ass whipping. I've attended this sort of training. In my personal experiences it is a group mournfully documenting a history of abuse and trying to guilt trip you into giving them special treatment. Fortunitly, I went to supply and was issued a triple thick skin.

 

[jillian]

How have the laws been eviserated? I'm a layman so please type slowly



And that sir, is that. Unless there is further information available it appears that her professional conduct and bearing were both documented in more than one locale by more than one supervisor.



I want Jillian to expand on that comment before I put words in her mouth. Personally I like Texas. Here, the employer can hire and fire at will. Which is how it should be.



The teacher needs an ass whipping. I've attended this sort of training. In my personal experiences it is a group mournfully documenting a history of abuse and trying to guilt trip you into giving them special treatment. Fortunitly, I went to supply and was issued a triple thick skin.

I know you're just funnin' me ...

Basically, we have certain employment discrimination laws on the books. However, in determining the requirements needed to prevail in a claim, the court interprets the statute and rules on issues like the evidence which can be put before the court and what constitutes a valid reason for termination (generally required to be a reason that is not subterfuge). Because of the legal philosophy of the Bush appointees who have been placed on the Federal bench over the past 8 years, it has become more and more difficult to meet the court's requirements to prevail, to the point where it is now almost impossible.

And if you do prevail, it is more difficult to get the court to provide an adequate remedy, leaving the law virtually toothless.

That's what I meant by eviscerating the law.

 

[pegwinn]

In that case I am all for eviseration in this case.

It should be damn hard to prove "unlawful" termination for any reason. And, the higher the accusation, the higher the standard of proof.

When the courts regulate who can be fired and why, then there goes another freedom down the toilet. It also serves as a deterrent to opening a small business if there is fear that you cannot run your own business.

I prefer that both parties are free to terminate the relationship for any reason or for none.

Having said all that.... If you reach the standard of proof needed...... then likely the business needs hammering. Odds are there are other things going on that are funny as well.

 

[William Joyce]

Basically, we have certain employment discrimination laws on the books. However, in determining the requirements needed to prevail in a claim, the court interprets the statute and rules on issues like the evidence which can be put before the court and what constitutes a valid reason for termination (generally required to be a reason that is not subterfuge). Because of the legal philosophy of the Bush appointees who have been placed on the Federal bench over the past 8 years, it has become more and more difficult to meet the court's requirements to prevail, to the point where it is now almost impossible.

And if you do prevail, it is more difficult to get the court to provide an adequate remedy, leaving the law virtually toothless.

That's what I meant by eviscerating the law.

Or... APPLYING it?

I do notice, as an attorney who doesn't do this area of law but is near it, that plaintiffs do often lose. Even before extremely liberal judges. The reason, if anyone bothers to read these cases, is that they suck. Basically, it's incompetent blacks who get fired, then file a lawsuit for "discrimination" because they know they can.

But hey... if you can cough up a legit case that lost and share with the group, by all means.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Or... APPLYING it?

I do notice, as an attorney who doesn't do this area of law but is near it, that plaintiffs do often lose. Even before extremely liberal judges. The reason, if anyone bothers to read these cases, is that they suck. Basically, it's incompetent blacks who get fired, then file a lawsuit for "discrimination" because they know they can.

But hey... if you can cough up a legit case that lost and share with the group, by all means.

She will make the claim that since the law is so poorly enforced that is her proof, in otherwords she won't provide one piece of evidence to support her claim.

 

[trobinett]

She will make the claim that since the law is so poorly enforced that is her proof, in otherwords she won't provide one piece of evidence to support her claim.

Hold on there RGS, lets give jillian a chance to response.