Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77

Thread: Discrimination question

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835

    Discrimination question

    Was talking to a buddy of mine the other night. He said he'd been let go from his job for....not being a woman. ?!?!?
    He was working for a contract outfit that provided call-center personnel for a large banking firm.
    That firm had, at some point, gone to the service provider, and stated they wanted only women to be used for the call-center positions.
    The provider advised the firm that they did not, at this time, have any females working for them to be able to do this.
    The firm continued to use the existing male call-center contractees for rougly 4-6 months, anyway.
    BUT, the firm withheld paying the provider because "they failed to provide the specified/requested TYPE of personnel".
    As a result, the provider was unable to pay the salaries of the male workers, and had to let them go.

    Is that even remotely legal? Or is that discriminatory? Would a firm be able to tell a contracted personnel or temp agency provider that they wanted only Whites, or only Blacks or only Chinese, to be provided?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
    National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
    Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
    Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
    Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
    Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

    Do any of those categories seem to fit?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    What types of calls does the call service take? ***Nevermind, it's for a bank. That's discrimination. I don't think males are a protected class.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 03-05-2012 at 11:29 AM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    So..... you're saying the male isn't one of the two sexes that makes up the human race, or what?

  5. #5
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    I believe this is a case of "We are all equal, just some more than others".

    You have a case to sue for back wages, lost wages, unemployment, pain and suffering...ect....ect.....ect

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    I can't think of any entity more profitable to sue than a bank! (Talk about yer "deep pockets") You should have no trouble finding a lawyer to take the case on a contingency basis. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  7. #7
    Regular Member ncwabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    rural religious usa
    Posts
    670
    good luck trying to find an attorney to take this case...

    as was explained to me by my attorney when i 'thought' of suing my employer over my perceived 'mistreatment' was that the corp attorneys are already on organizational salary so when they call my attorney about some silly question, my attorney's $250/hour clock starts. as for finding a contingency attorney who will take your discrimination case and not take 60%+ good luck!!

    additionally, you might find there is a paper trail of misbehaviours tagged to you by your supervisor(s) which will springed on you if you push the case.

    contact the labor relations board see if they can help.

    wabbit

  8. #8
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Personally I see nothing wrong with discrimination on non government jobs. If the bank doesn't want guys then I think that is their right. If you don't like their policies then don't do business with them.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    Was talking to a buddy of mine the other night. He said he'd been let go from his job for....not being a woman. ?!?!?
    He was working for a contract outfit that provided call-center personnel for a large banking firm.
    That firm had, at some point, gone to the service provider, and stated they wanted only women to be used for the call-center positions.
    The provider advised the firm that they did not, at this time, have any females working for them to be able to do this.
    The firm continued to use the existing male call-center contractees for rougly 4-6 months, anyway.
    BUT, the firm withheld paying the provider because "they failed to provide the specified/requested TYPE of personnel".
    As a result, the provider was unable to pay the salaries of the male workers, and had to let them go.

    Is that even remotely legal? Or is that discriminatory? Would a firm be able to tell a contracted personnel or temp agency provider that they wanted only Whites, or only Blacks or only Chinese, to be provided?
    If the bank can show a bona fide occupational qualification then they would win. It's doubtful that they would be able to do so though. Hooters went through this and lost.

    If the employee goes through EEOC then I don't believe they have to pay for a lawyer because EEOC brings the suit. Not 100% though.

    On its face it sound like discrimination. Reverse male/female or exchange it with black/white and it wouldn't be tolerated.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Private enterprise should be able to refuse to hire or trade with anyone, for any reason. It's PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, and they have the right to either open up their market opportunities as much as possible, or isolate themselves and focus on a targeted section of a market. There should not be a governmental power that prevents it. If you don't like it, don't ^%$#@ shop there.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  11. #11
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Private enterprise should be able to refuse to hire or trade with anyone, for any reason. It's PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, and they have the right to either open up their market opportunities as much as possible, or isolate themselves and focus on a targeted section of a market. There should not be a governmental power that prevents it. If you don't like it, don't ^%$#@ shop there.
    Wrong country. That was decided in the 60s. No matter how much you'd like it back, it isn't coming back.

    Too bad for you...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    Wrong country. That was decided in the 60s. No matter how much you'd like it back, it isn't coming back.

    Too bad for you...
    Well... that's an interesting issue. Though I agree with others that arguing "race/gender" is stupid, it is important for us to understand how various discrimination issues have allowed the federal government to grab more power.

    Consider that the various Civil Rights Acts listed several posts above are enacted by a simple majority of the 2 houses and a president's signature. Even if we agree that, in fact, those things in such laws are actually "rights", they are poorly protected.

    If we give the power to the federal government to tell us who we MUST do business with, then the camel's nose is in the tent... and soon the rest of the camel.

    Just to be clear about what I mean about the "rest of the camel", I mean further ability of the fed to tell us what we can and can't do with our private property regardless of our race or gender... equal opportunity slavery for us all.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 03-05-2012 at 11:00 PM.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Well... that's an interesting issue. Though I agree with others that arguing "race/gender" is stupid, it is important for us to understand how various discrimination issues have allowed the federal government to grab more power.

    Consider that the various Civil Rights Acts listed above are enacted by a simple majority of the 2 houses and a president's signature. Even if we agree that, in fact, those things in such laws are actually "rights", they are poorly protected.

    If we give the power to the federal government to tell us who we MUST do business with, then the camel's nose is in the tent... and soon the rest of the camel.

    Just to be clear about what I mean about the "rest of the camel", I mean further ability of the fed to tell us what we can and can't do with our private property regardless of our race or gender... equal opportunity slavery for us all.
    Exactly... and that's their motivation. Leftist scumbags deplore individual rights, they want their pet group to have rights over individuals.

    They want their camel not just in our tent, but sleeping in our beds, and forcing us to feed and bathe that stinky beast.

    BTW, in response to "it's not coming back", no one wants your vision of the 60's too come back. No one wants your vision of the future either.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 03-05-2012 at 11:08 PM.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  14. #14
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Well... that's an interesting issue. Though I agree with others that arguing "race/gender" is stupid, it is important for us to understand how various discrimination issues have allowed the federal government to grab more power.

    Consider that the various Civil Rights Acts listed several posts above are enacted by a simple majority of the 2 houses and a president's signature. Even if we agree that, in fact, those things in such laws are actually "rights", they are poorly protected.
    I'm not sure what you mean by protected.

    If we give the power to the federal government to tell us who we MUST do business with, then the camel's nose is in the tent... and soon the rest of the camel.

    Just to be clear about what I mean about the "rest of the camel", I mean further ability of the fed to tell us what we can and can't do with our private property regardless of our race or gender... equal opportunity slavery for us all.
    I get this but aren't we trying to put the genie back in the bottle? It seems we are speaking about something the should be in an ideal world but not what actually is. The government already has this power.
    Last edited by Stanley; 03-05-2012 at 11:07 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    Wrong country. That was decided in the 60s. No matter how much you'd like it back, it isn't coming back.

    Too bad for you...
    Slavery by the people was abolished, I think slavery (in a form) by the government can too.

    I think it is simple "what is good for the goose is good for the gander".

    Without picking parameters, just with a "yes" or "no": Should the government be allowed to force one group/individual to do business with another group/individual?

    I think no. I can refuse to work for a man but I can't be refused because I am a man? That is discrimination too.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    I get this but aren't we trying to put the genie back in the bottle? It seems we are speaking about something the should be in an ideal world but not what actually is. The government already has this power.
    So you think that just because it IS means that it is RIGHT? Say you come home one day with me living in your house. I AM living in your house, does that mean I should have the right to do so? NOPE. It is your house, you should be allowed to choose who (if any) lives there. Equally, it is your business you should be able to choose who (if any) works there.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Slavery by the people was abolished, I think slavery (in a form) by the government can too.

    I think it is simple "what is good for the goose is good for the gander".

    Without picking parameters, just with a "yes" or "no": Should the government be allowed to force one group/individual to do business with another group/individual?

    I think no. I can refuse to work for a man but I can't be refused because I am a man? That is discrimination too.
    The problem is that the last time we operated in this manner a whole class of people were unable to get work in most places. In fact, it took WW2 and a mass exodus of men to force the change.

    The question still is, not will it happen again as neither you nor I can answer that, but what will we do IF it happens again. You are advocating removing protections which were created because they were needed. These are not arbitrary laws that someone made for $&^*'s and giggles.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    So you think that just because it IS means that it is RIGHT? Say you come home one day with me living in your house. I AM living in your house, does that mean I should have the right to do so? NOPE. It is your house, you should be allowed to choose who (if any) lives there. Equally, it is your business you should be able to choose who (if any) works there.
    That's not what I said.

    I specifically said that this is how it is now. Since you advocate changing this then the onus is on you to figure out how to do it and prevent a reoccurrence of what precipitated the need for the laws in the first place. Just saying it will work out won't cut it because it didn't cut it before.

    Someone in another thread spoke about how you need force or reason to convince someone. Force isn't going to work so what's your reasoning???

    As for your example... Aren't we living on Native American land??? America was built on living in other people's houses if we get down to it. Not saying it's right. Just saying the example is a poor example.

    A better example would have been that since you are a private business you could hang this sign to your hearts content...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	no-colored-allowed-black-americana-cast-iron-sign-10x4_220665307171.jpg 
Views:	53 
Size:	91.8 KB 
ID:	8070

    Oh wait... Nevermind...
    Last edited by Stanley; 03-05-2012 at 11:24 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean by protected.
    Well... our government was instituted to protect those rights mentioned in the declaration of independence that are self evident. The Constitution of the United States limits the federal government and through the first ten amendments, attempts to protect certain enumerated rights along with those not enumerated. It does so by making the amendment process a bit difficult. It's much easier to pass a law than to amend the Constitution. Those civil rights enacted in the '60s are simply legislative acts. They can be repealed by a simple majority of the legislature and a pres signature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    I get this but aren't we trying to put the genie back in the bottle? It seems we are speaking about something the should be in an ideal world but not what actually is. The government already has this power.
    Yes. Some of us are trying to put the genie back in the bottle. That's really the whole point of this site. Through legislative action and bad SCOTUS decisions, our 2A rights have been whittled significantly. Putting the genie back in the bottle is our only recourse... lest we decide to shoot the genie.

  20. #20
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Your dollar does more good that government ever thought of, and it has less chances to be abused.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    A better example would have been that since you are a private business you could hang this sign to your hearts content...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	no-colored-allowed-black-americana-cast-iron-sign-10x4_220665307171.jpg 
Views:	53 
Size:	91.8 KB 
ID:	8070

    Oh wait... Nevermind...
    Damn right I think you should be allowed to. Or "No whites/caucasian" "No hispanics/mexican" "No straights" "No gays" "No men" "No women". It is your business. I have been discriminated against for carrying a gun and didn't see anything wrong with a private business doing this. I have been skipped over in lines for them to wait on an attractive female, that is discrimination too. I don't guess I would feel this to be wrong if I was discriminated against for any other reason either. The thing of it is that those that were discriminated against then, now have enough economic power to fight their own battles. They don't need the government to step in and take our and THEIR rights to do it.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Yes. Some of us are trying to put the genie back in the bottle. That's really the whole point of this site. Through legislative action and bad SCOTUS decisions, our 2A rights have been whittled significantly. Putting the genie back in the bottle is our only recourse... lest we decide to shoot the genie.
    In the convoluted "mind" of a liberal, any attempt too reverse any of their advancements according to their programming means you want to reinstitute slavery and ethnically cleanse the world. These people do not value freedom or individuals who sustain themselves. They're collectivists at heart.

    It's funny how we have a few more of these idiots on this site so much more often now that election time draws nigh...

    I actually miss "the donk", he had a sense of humor and wasn't just a leftist a$$hole who finally bought a gun.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  23. #23
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Damn right I think you should be allowed to. Or "No whites/caucasian" "No hispanics/mexican" "No straights" "No gays" "No men" "No women". It is your business. I have been discriminated against for carrying a gun and didn't see anything wrong with a private business doing this. I have been skipped over in lines for them to wait on an attractive female, that is discrimination too. I don't guess I would feel this to be wrong if I was discriminated against for any other reason either. The thing of it is that those that were discriminated against then, now have enough economic power to fight their own battles. They don't need the government to step in and take our and THEIR rights to do it.
    Well, I do agree if you are going to protect one you have to protect all or not protect anything.

    However, you are wrong about not needing protection.

    If I shop in DC clearly I will get service. I used to live in Elwood, IN. Minority is an understatement there. If everyone refused me service I would have no power, I would then have to move. Then we would be back to <insert class here> free zones. That is a fail.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    In the convoluted "mind" of a liberal, any attempt too reverse any of their advancements according to their programming means you want to reinstitute slavery and ethnically cleanse the world. These people do not value freedom or individuals who sustain themselves. They're collectivists at heart.

    It's funny how we have a few more of these idiots on this site so much more often now that election time draws nigh...

    I actually miss "the donk", he had a sense of humor and wasn't just a leftist a$$hole who finally bought a gun.
    Do you ever contribute anything worthwhile other than vitriol and nonsense???

    You call people ******** and twits and then just spew bull%^$%... Clearly, your entire contribution to this site is just that. Bull$%*^.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Damn right I think you should be allowed to. Or "No whites/caucasian" "No hispanics/mexican" "No straights" "No gays" "No men" "No women". It is your business. I have been discriminated against for carrying a gun and didn't see anything wrong with a private business doing this. I have been skipped over in lines for them to wait on an attractive female, that is discrimination too. I don't guess I would feel this to be wrong if I was discriminated against for any other reason either. The thing of it is that those that were discriminated against then, now have enough economic power to fight their own battles. They don't need the government to step in and take our and THEIR rights to do it.
    I used to be "discriminated" against because I had long hair and a Metallica T-Shirt on for job interviews. I always thought "^%#! 'em, I'm too good for that job anyway. I NEVER considered getting a lawyer and demanding employment.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •