But I Went to Harvard Law School!

[jillian]

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.

Actually, my first federal jury trial was a REVERSE discrimination claim... white corrections officer got fired by his black supervisors. But I know how you hate discrimination claims, so I'm sure you'd have been unsympathetic to him and would have been all for the court's ruling that no evidence as to how he was treated PRIOR to him making his first complaint, could be shown to the jury.

Now, kindly reinsert your head in your butt....

 

[jillian]

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

RGS is just cranky that I don't engage in his brand of "debate" But he'll keep trying to distort, and pretend he has some insight.

Hence my not playing with him anymore. ;o)

 

[jillian]

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.

See, here's the thing... attorneys don't want valueless cases. That's not to say that some don't take them, but it's far less common than lawyer-haters would acknowledge. And that's not even necessarily out of altruism or honesty. It's out of economic necessity. Discrimination cases are very expensive. If they're in Federal Court, they're subject to rule 11 sanctions for frivolous claims.

But, try this case for a start:

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. ___ (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that employers are protected from lawsuits over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear

Now, be honest, what do you think the chances are of someone finding out they're being paid less than the comparable workers they're employed with, within 180 days of that decision being made. In Ledbetter's case, she received an anonymous letter from a co-worker who felt badly about the extraordinary disparity between herself and the men she worked with, even those way younger and less experienced.

The correct decision would have been that she had 180 days to file AFTER FINDING OUT... but there ya go, that wouldn't have destroyed the ability of the statute to provide a remedy.

 

[pegwinn]

See, here's the thing... attorneys don't want valueless cases. That's not to say that some don't take them, but it's far less common than lawyer-haters would acknowledge. And that's not even necessarily out of altruism or honesty. It's out of economic necessity. Discrimination cases are very expensive. If they're in Federal Court, they're subject to rule 11 sanctions for frivolous claims. I hope you don't think I hate lawyers. I don't like the stereotypical sharks that make cash on class action lawsuits.

But, try this case for a start:

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear

Now, be honest, what do you think the chances are of someone finding out they're being paid less than the comparable workers they're employed with, within 180 days of that decision being made. In Ledbetter's case, she received an anonymous letter from a co-worker who felt badly about the extraordinary disparity between herself and the men she worked with, even those way younger and less experienced.

The correct decision would have been that she had 180 days to file AFTER FINDING OUT... but there ya go, that wouldn't have destroyed the ability of the statute to provide a remedy.

Jillian, you are a nice person. And there are times when the underdog needs a white knight to ride to the rescue.

The employer should get to pick who they hire and fire and what they pay them. My wife just found out that she is being paid only a small amount over the salary of some other women in the office. Yet her position carries far more work and responsibility. Should she sue? Nope. Instead she is shopping around for another job. Her immediate supervisor (also a woman) knows that she is shopping around and (regretfully) agrees with her decision. But, the owner (a husband/wife team with the wife holding the hammer) is blissfully ignorant as they pay as little as they can get away with.

I am honestly a layman (very layman) when it comes to employment laws like this. To me, employment is two way. Both parties need to be satisfied, or one needs to take a walk.

C'ya round.

 

[jillian]

Jillian, you are a nice person. And there are times when the underdog needs a white knight to ride to the rescue.

The employer should get to pick who they hire and fire and what they pay them. My wife just found out that she is being paid only a small amount over the salary of some other women in the office. Yet her position carries far more work and responsibility. Should she sue? Nope. Instead she is shopping around for another job. Her immediate supervisor (also a woman) knows that she is shopping around and (regretfully) agrees with her decision. But, the owner (a husband/wife team with the wife holding the hammer) is blissfully ignorant as they pay as little as they can get away with.

I am honestly a layman (very layman) when it comes to employment laws like this. To me, employment is two way. Both parties need to be satisfied, or one needs to take a walk.

C'ya round.

First, nope, I don't think you hate lawyers.

Second, thank you. You seem like a nice person, too. But my frustration is that these laws exist and they aren't being enforced in the Courts. I do not believe that it is ok for a business to discriminate or the worker is "free to take a walk". Things are already skewed against workers. If businesses are allowed to discriminate with impunity, then they will always favor young, white males. Why is that okay? I'm as good, if not better at, my job than most of the men with whom I work. Should they be allowed to be paid more simply because of a fluke of birth?

As it stands, people can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. Employers shouldn't be allowed to discriminate for ILLEGAL reasons, which is all the law requires.

As for your wife's position, that doesn't sound like anything illegal, nor would it form the basis for a lawsuit (just so you don't think I'm suit-happy). It just sounds like she needs to find an employer who doesn't want her on the cheap. I'm making that judgment because salaries, in this case, are being measured against other females. However, if a male in the same job and with the same responsibilities were being paid a larger amount, it would certainly raise questions.

Always a pleasure.

 

[William Joyce]

Actually, my first federal jury trial was a REVERSE discrimination claim... white corrections officer got fired by his black supervisors. But I know how you hate discrimination claims, so I'm sure you'd have been unsympathetic to him and would have been all for the court's ruling that no evidence as to how he was treated PRIOR to him making his first complaint, could be shown to the jury.

Now, kindly reinsert your head in your butt....

You represented him?

 

[Annie]

You represented him?

Like you WJ, Jillian is full of surprises. She is also mostly an honest person, as long as not asking her about Democrats.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Like you WJ, Jillian is full of surprises. She is also mostly an honest person, as long as not asking her about Democrats.

Or getting real information about Bush and Company. She claimed he was Xenephobic, yet can not and will not answer all the obvious points that prove that statement is ignorant at best.

 

[jillian]

You represented him?

Yes. And, unlike you, I'm colorblind about discrimination. It shouldn't happen regardless of which side of the color spectrum your skin happens to be.

 

[pegwinn]

First, nope, I don't think you hate lawyers. Well that is good. Hate is a powerful word. I don't hate anyone.

Second, thank you. You seem like a nice person, too. But my frustration is that these laws exist and they aren't being enforced in the Courts. For the sake of argument I will defer this as I cannot prove the opposite.

I do not believe that it is ok for a business to discriminate or the worker is "free to take a walk". Discrimination is in the eye of the beholder. There is always two sides to every story. Why isn't the worker free to "take a walk"?

Things are already skewed against workers. That is a matter of opinion. I don't think anyone can fully prove either side of that coin.

If businesses are allowed to discriminate with impunity, then they will always favor young, white males. Why is that okay? I'm as good, if not better at, my job than most of the men with whom I work. Should they be allowed to be paid more simply because of a fluke of birth? What is the other side of the story? There has to be a reason why others are paid more. It may be that they generate more revenue. OR, it may be that they cost less and so a portion of that savings are handed over in the form of extra pay.

As it stands, people can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. Employers shouldn't be allowed to discriminate for ILLEGAL reasons, which is all the law requires. I have a problem with this because it takes the freedom of choice away from everyone and it provides a crutch as opposed to a tool for the employed.

As for your wife's position, that doesn't sound like anything illegal, nor would it form the basis for a lawsuit (just so you don't think I'm suit-happy). It just sounds like she needs to find an employer who doesn't want her on the cheap. Eggggzactly. Freedom of choice on both sides of the issue. Her supervisor is going to be heartbroken when she leaves. But, one must do what one must.

I'm making that judgment because salaries, in this case, are being measured against other females. However, if a male in the same job and with the same responsibilities were being paid a larger amount, it would certainly raise questions. You see, I would not question the M v. F aspect. I would ask the employer why the M was more valuable than the F. Could it be that the M over a period of time is less likely to take time off for child related issues? Could it be that the M draws in a certain clientele that spends more? Could he be more levelheaded and less apt to go off at certain times of the month? Each question is very sharp edged and yet could actually form the basis of a bottom line business decision to pay the M more. I personally know how to set up a neutral HR system (more on that later) that eliminates the human aspect and is purely results driven. But not all employers have my training or the discipline to apply it.

Always a pleasure. Likewize m'dear.

Here is a real world example. I retired from the Marines in 03 following the return of my unit. I was a senior enlisted guy. I have been a Company First Sergeant. I have supervised well over a hundred Marines at a time. I was responsible for millions of dollars worth of gear. Yet I cannot get a job in Management or Human Resources. Why? With years of experience and all.... I don't have a degree. I had a guy look me in the eye and honestly tell me that I was well qualified, but not hireable without a degree. I believe I am the victim of a combination of age and education discrimination. Should I go to court to get a job?

Nope. It was my decisions that kept me from college. It is a lifetime of choices.

You cannot help how you were born. But from that moment you gain more and more control over your life and your power to choose grows as well.

We will agree to disagree I bet. The bottom line for me is that discrimination is an overused crutch. It should be very hard to prove.

C'ya

 

[jillian]

Here is a real world example. I retired from the Marines in 03 following the return of my unit. I was a senior enlisted guy. I have been a Company First Sergeant. I have supervised well over a hundred Marines at a time. I was responsible for millions of dollars worth of gear. Yet I cannot get a job in Management or Human Resources. Why? With years of experience and all.... I don't have a degree. I had a guy look me in the eye and honestly tell me that I was well qualified, but not hireable without a degree. I believe I am the victim of a combination of age and education discrimination. Should I go to court to get a job?

Nope. It was my decisions that kept me from college. It is a lifetime of choices.

You cannot help how you were born. But from that moment you gain more and more control over your life and your power to choose grows as well.

We will agree to disagree I bet. The bottom line for me is that discrimination is an overused crutch. It should be very hard to prove.

C'ya

Why would a male employee be more valuable to a company than a female employee? More likely that women get mommy-tracked and employers decide that the guys need the money more (which is how it's been historically). I suspect that part of our disagreement is because you've been in the military. And, FWIW, the military appears to be one of the most egalitarian of organizations. By that, I do not mean that everyone is of equal rank or equal ability or equal worth. I mean, simply, that everyone has equal opportunity to rise within the ranks.

That isn't the case in private business. There is the "old boys' network". There is a bias against investing in women in some sectors because they decide, in advance, that women will leave to raise families.

As for education discrimination, well, I don't think anyone is arguing that business shouldn't set certain requirements for employment. The problem only exists when the requirements and rewards are different for men and women or blacks and whites or young and old. So, if you think they discriminate against you because you're over 40, then by all means look into it because you become a member of a "suspect class" after that age. By suspect class, the law means that you are now part of a group which is more likely to be discriminated against.

I don't really think there's any question that employers have more power than employees. ;o)

Mostly, though, regardless of your philosophy on this type of thing... the laws exist. There teeth shouldn't be taken away because of a governmental philosophy that differs with them. They should have the chutzpah to say, "we want to repeal these laws" so the bums can be voted out by those of us who disagree. ;o)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why would a male employee be more valuable to a company than a female employee? More likely that women get mommy-tracked and employers decide that the guys need the money more (which is how it's been historically). I suspect that part of our disagreement is because you've been in the military. And, FWIW, the military appears to be one of the most egalitarian of organizations. By that, I do not mean that everyone is of equal rank or equal ability or equal worth. I mean, simply, that everyone has equal opportunity to rise within the ranks.

That isn't the case in private business. There is the "old boys' network". There is a bias against investing in women in some sectors because they decide, in advance, that women will leave to raise families.

As for education discrimination, well, I don't think anyone is arguing that business shouldn't set certain requirements for employment. The problem only exists when the requirements and rewards are different for men and women or blacks and whites or young and old. So, if you think they discriminate against you because you're over 40, then by all means look into it because you become a member of a "suspect class" after that age. By suspect class, the law means that you are now part of a group which is more likely to be discriminated against.

I don't really think there's any question that employers have more power than employees. ;o)

Mostly, though, regardless of your philosophy on this type of thing... the laws exist. There teeth shouldn't be taken away because of a governmental philosophy that differs with them. They should have the chutzpah to say, "we want to repeal these laws" so the bums can be voted out by those of us who disagree. ;o)

Perhaps you should mention that philosphy to the Democrats that want to create illegal unconstitutional entities in the Federal Government and in fact already have a few going now.

Ohh wait I forgot you think the Constitution places no limits what so ever on Congress doing what ever they want claiming it is for the "good" of the people.

 

[pegwinn]

Why would a male employee be more valuable to a company than a female employee? More likely that women get mommy-tracked and employers decide that the guys need the money more (which is how it's been historically). I suspect that part of our disagreement is because you've been in the military. And, FWIW, the military appears to be one of the most egalitarian of organizations. By that, I do not mean that everyone is of equal rank or equal ability or equal worth. I mean, simply, that everyone has equal opportunity to rise within the ranks. By and large that is very true. There are exceptions that prove the rule of course.

That isn't the case in private business. There is the "old boys' network". There is a bias against investing in women in some sectors because they decide, in advance, that women will leave to raise families. I have no doubt of that. My point is that if the business in question wishes to be all male all the time..... Then let the market decide. Same with business that wishes to be all black or all hispanic etc. Freedom of choice is what is being taken away and this isn't the only area.

As for education discrimination, well, I don't think anyone is arguing that business shouldn't set certain requirements for employment. Now hold on young lady. IF Hooters requires the women to be 20something and buxom, that is wrong, right? If the point is can you do the job, then education discrimination would be just as wrong huh?

The problem only exists when the requirements and rewards are different for men and women or blacks and whites or young and old. So, if you think they discriminate against you because you're over 40, then by all means look into it because you become a member of a "suspect class" after that age. By suspect class, the law means that you are now part of a group which is more likely to be discriminated against. Nah. Like I said, I think discrimination should be very hard to prove. And, I believe it is mostly a crutch. I honestly don't think I would have much self respect in the morning if I went to court over something like that.

I don't really think there's any question that employers have more power than employees. ;o) In a one-to-one basis, you are likely correct. Some people cannot afford to lose a job. Even one that sux rancid bathwater. But, the bottom line is that labor is a supply and demand item. The balance of power shifts as the numbers increase. A genuine union with the best interests of its' members at heart can leverage this. But, in my limited study, unions are little better than congressmen. Political, self centered, and not out for anyones best interest except itself. It has become very big business.
Mostly, though, regardless of your philosophy on this type of thing... the laws exist. There teeth shouldn't be taken away because of a governmental philosophy that differs with them. They should have the chutzpah to say, "we want to repeal these laws" so the bums can be voted out by those of us who disagree. ;o)

I love that line. Points coming your way.

Perhaps you should mention that philosphy to the Democrats that want to create illegal unconstitutional entities in the Federal Government and in fact already have a few going now. That aint nothing new. Problem is that they are entrenched and the citizenry doesn't appear to care as long as the fedbux keep on coming.
Ohh wait I forgot you think the Constitution places no limits what so ever on Congress doing what ever they want claiming it is for the "good" of the people.

Term Limits. Oh wait, the USSC says we cannot term limit a federally elected official without an amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I love that line. Points coming your way.



Term Limits. Oh wait, the USSC says we cannot term limit a federally elected official without an amendment.

I do NOT agree with term limits. If the people WANT the stupidest Democrats to be in Congress or even the Presidency for 50 years, THAT is the right of the people. The LIMITS are the Voters. It is our job to vote them in or out. NOT to create a crutch so we do not have to be responsible for our own stupid actions.

I think Clinton should have been able to run for as many terms as the dumb ass public was willing to elect him for.

 

[pegwinn]

I do NOT agree with term limits. If the people WANT the stupidest Democrats to be in Congress or even the Presidency for 50 years, THAT is the right of the people. The LIMITS are the Voters. It is our job to vote them in or out. NOT to create a crutch so we do not have to be responsible for our own stupid actions.

I think Clinton should have been able to run for as many terms as the dumb ass public was willing to elect him for.

Your opinion is cool with me. I figure that if the president is limited to two terms, then what is good for the goose etc.

Long Service elected officials stagnate the process in my opinion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your opinion is cool with me. I figure that if the president is limited to two terms, then what is good for the goose etc.

Long Service elected officials stagnate the process in my opinion.

We are , for good or ill, a Representative Republic. The Federal offices and the Federal Government obstensibly exist at our pleasure and by our vote. The ONLY limit on how many times a federal position can be held by anyone should rightly rest with ONLY the voters.

 

[pegwinn]

We are , for good or ill, a Representative Republic. The Federal offices and the Federal Government obstensibly exist at our pleasure and by our vote. The ONLY limit on how many times a federal position can be held by anyone should rightly rest with ONLY the voters.

Is this a debate? We already disagree, and, well, in the big picture sort of way it won't matter since the USSC settled it.

But, imagine if you will a Congress where Pelosi, Kennedy, etc cannot spend a lifetime makeing rules they don't live by. Wanna get way out? Imagine the Speaker of the House with only ten years total elected service...... Why, they would have to rewrite the process so that something could get done.

Just remember please, They don't work for us.

Time to hit the rack.
C'ya

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is this a debate? We already disagree, and, well, in the big picture sort of way it won't matter since the USSC settled it.

But, imagine if you will a Congress where Pelosi, Kennedy, etc cannot spend a lifetime makeing rules they don't live by. Wanna get way out? Imagine the Speaker of the House with only ten years total elected service...... Why, they would have to rewrite the process so that something could get done.

Just remember please, They don't work for us.

Time to hit the rack.
C'ya

And the Supreme Court made the CORRECT decision. I personally would vote for a repel of the amendment that limits the president BUT in the end that limit was made BY an Amendment. The people agreed to it.

 

[jillian]

I love that line. Points coming your way.

Thanks much. Like I said, different philosophies. And we can certainly disagree. But the marketplace does not decide these issues. There have to be ramifications for that to happen. That only exists with enforcement of these laws.

Have a great day.

 

[AllieBaba]

Here is a real world example. I retired from the Marines in 03 following the return of my unit. I was a senior enlisted guy. I have been a Company First Sergeant. I have supervised well over a hundred Marines at a time. I was responsible for millions of dollars worth of gear. Yet I cannot get a job in Management or Human Resources. Why? With years of experience and all.... I don't have a degree. I had a guy look me in the eye and honestly tell me that I was well qualified, but not hireable without a degree. I believe I am the victim of a combination of age and education discrimination. Should I go to court to get a job?

Nope. It was my decisions that kept me from college. It is a lifetime of choices.

You cannot help how you were born. But from that moment you gain more and more control over your life and your power to choose grows as well.

We will agree to disagree I bet. The bottom line for me is that discrimination is an overused crutch. It should be very hard to prove.

C'ya

If you are committed to getting a job in human services, you have to allow for relocation in order to get a foot in the door. Apply statewide....you're sure to get interviews. A degree is not always a requirement, if you have a combination of education and experience...and you're willing to move to an area that people with higher levels of education aren't willing to go.

And don't forget the schools run by the military. They're always looking for civilians with either military backgrounds, or human service credits.