Posted on 08/18/2018 10:48:05 AM PDT by rickmichaels
An Iowa appeals board has reversed a judge's ruling that a woman who disparaged Mexicans can claim unemployment benefits because such rhetoric is "common" after President Trump was elected.
Angela Diers filed for unemployment after said she was fired from her job at Dexter Laundry after she said in front of co-workers that she hated “f---ing Mexicans," The Des Moines Register reported Wednesday.
Administrative Law Judge Beth Scheetz had originally approved Diers's request for aid, saying that derogatory comments about "blacks and foreigners" were commonplace at the commercial washer and dryer manufacturing plant where Diers worked.
“Since President Trump’s election, it was common for workers to talk about hating blacks or hating foreigners,” Scheetz wrote in her ruling. “If management wishes all workers to be treated with respect, it must enforce respectful treatment amongst co-workers and supervisors, and apply those expectations consistently throughout the chain of command."
Diers testified at her unemployment hearing that she was frustrated by a co-worker “dancing and singing Mexican” early in the morning before Cinco de Mayo. Diers acknowledged that she hated "f---ing Mexicans" in front of several coworkers.
The newspaper reported that Diers later tried to clarify that she meant she only hated “illegal Mexicans.”
“We talk about everything out on the floor — whether it’s the president or the vice president,” Diers testified. “There has been talk on the floor: Some people don’t like blacks, certain people don’t like Mexicans, certain people don’t like foreigners. We talk, and then we just move on.”
Diers reportedly told Scheetz that rhetoric against African-Americans and immigrants intensified since Trump took office.
“There was a lot of controversy out on the floor during the presidential election,” she testified.
Iowa's Employment Appeals Board, however, ruled that Diers was clearly violating the company’s definition of misconduct and reversed Scheetz’s decision on the woman's unemployment claim.
“Her clarification that she only meant ‘illegal’ Mexicans does not absolve her of culpability,” the board wrote, according to The Register.
The appeals board denied Dier's appeal for a rehearing on Monday, a spokesperson from the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals told The Hill.
Diers has said she plans to appeal the board's decision denying her jobless benefits, moving the case to district court, The Register reported.
Abhorrent conduct on the part of this lady, BUT what happened to our First Amendment? Did the Brits retake control of the colonies?
Creative. The lawyer who suggested that must be disbarred.
“BUT what happened to our First Amendment? “
Does not apply to the private workplace.
We would have to see the companies definition of misconduct. I mean if this lady said she didn’t like a particular sports team, would they still deny her unemployment? Seems like we’re on a slippery slope, It could get to the point where people can’t say anything at work. At some jobs. 1984 around the corner.
Seems like to me it does apply because we're talking about her government-paid unemployment claim, not her private employment or lack thereof.
DUDE, you are not eligible for unemployment when fired!
““Since President Trump’s election, it was common for workers to talk about hating blacks or hating foreigners,” Scheetz...”
Another judge propagandist using President Trump to blame for societies leftist created ills.
“I mean if this lady said she didn’t like a particular sports team, would they still deny her unemployment? “
LOL! You are joking?
You can appeal if you are denied benefits.
He did. He lost.
Except the NFL “workplace” of course.
>>>“Since President Trump’s election, it was common for workers to talk about hating blacks or hating foreigners,” Scheetz wrote in her ruling.<<<
I did not know that. Silly me.
I wouldn't know, DUDE.
Now you know.
It could be the next logical step.
Most companies have policies of telling what you did wrong to give you a chance to change behavior. Sounds like they did nothing, just fired her. No warning.
So what other things are forbidden to talk about at that place?
Like I said, we would have to see the company’s policies which are mysteriously not in the article. Pretty bad journalism. But the whole thing just doesn’t ring true in the least. Part of the story is likely a liberal plant.
I don’t see hwere what she said has any bearing on her jobless claim.
Maybe she got fired for her words, but judges don’t have authority to decide what a state or country can allow as qualifications for jobless benefits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.