Discrimination question

j4l · Mar 4, 2012

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?

Fallschirjmäger · Mar 4, 2012

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?

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 5, 2012

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.

Fallschirjmäger · Mar 5, 2012

So..... you're saying the male isn't one of the two sexes that makes up the human race, or what?

DocWalker · Mar 5, 2012

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

Gil223 · Mar 5, 2012

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...

ncwabbit · Mar 5, 2012

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

09jisaac · Mar 5, 2012

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.

Stanley · Mar 5, 2012

j4l said:
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.

PrayingForWar · Mar 5, 2012

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.

Stanley · Mar 5, 2012

PrayingForWar said:
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...

georg jetson · Mar 5, 2012

Stanley said:
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.

PrayingForWar · Mar 5, 2012

georg jetson said:
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.

Stanley · Mar 5, 2012

georg jetson said:
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.

09jisaac · Mar 5, 2012

Stanley said:
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.

09jisaac · Mar 5, 2012

Stanley said:
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.

Stanley · Mar 5, 2012

09jisaac said:
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.

Stanley · Mar 5, 2012

09jisaac said:
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...

Oh wait... Nevermind...

georg jetson · Mar 5, 2012

Stanley said:
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.

Stanley said:
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.

09jisaac · Mar 5, 2012

Your dollar does more good that government ever thought of, and it has less chances to be abused.

Discrimination question

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member