Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Become a Monthly Donor
To End the FReepathons
Sponsoring donors will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 10/03/2011 10:48:59 AM PDT by John Semmens
A key provision of President Obama’s so-called “jobs bill” would establish the failure of any business to hire an unemployed person as a prima facie case of discrimination. Under the bill, any unemployed person who applies for a job that ultimately is filled by hiring someone else who is already employed could sue the employing firm. The firm would have to show that the suing plaintiff could not have done the job for which he wasn’t hired.
Critics contend that this provision will encourage litigation and invite nuisance lawsuits. Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Tex) said that “passage of the bill would raise the costs of doing business and further depress hiring. Whenever a job opening is filled there are typically more unsuccessful applicants than hirees. If every one of these unsuccessful candidates who is unemployed is invited to file a lawsuit a business might be discouraged from hiring anyone at all.”
Press Secretary Jay Carney called Gohmert’s perspective “myopic.” “He’s only looking at it from the viewpoint of firms that might be sued,” Carney pointed out. “Firms that play it safe and give preferential treatment to those who are unemployed will face no risk of litigation. Another overlooked plus is the employment that will be provided to lawyers who take up these cases on behalf of those being discriminated against, as well as the lawyers who would then be needed to defend the accused firms.”
Even nuisance suits—those that don’t have a case, but which are launched in the hope that a quick settlement would be more attractive to the defendant than the expense of a trial—were praised. “You always hear a lot of negatives about these nuisance suits,” Carney said. “But let’s not forget that the money paid out is injected into the economy and helps stimulate a round of spending that helps create jobs.”
read more...
http://azconserv1.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/call-to-postpone-2012-elections-gaining-momentum/
He has to payback the legal guild masters that helped get him elected.
The “Legal Guild” in this country is the worst monopoly ever to drag us all down. Real Machavellian Tort reform is needed to put thousands of lawyers into the unemployment lines.
What happens when the unemployed is a white male and the other (employed elsewhere) is a black/hispanic lesbian?
got to the 3rd paragraph this time thinking was real! ‘play it safe’ was the tell.
I posted this on the same subject last week:
‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ 9/27/2011 (‘Outlaw discrimination based on employment record’)
My response to Chris if I was in Stephen Moores place there: #16
All HR has to do is not call anyone with large gaps in their employment. No interview, no sue.
This is outrageous
can you cite the article or sentence in the actual bill that states that no matter if the unemployed person could actually do the job or not the unemploed person can sue?
I want to contact my congresspple on this
I was just copying the article text that proposes to outlaw discrimination based on (un)employment history. That is how it works with other discrimination laws.
Ok wait
i was replying to a post and had not read the thread from which the post referred.
apparently it is satire
Were you following Obama’s/Pelosi’s first legislative victory the Lilly Ledbetter law that allows individuals to sue for wage discrimination with no statue of limitations? That way Lilly can sue claiming she was paid too little 20 years ago, how do employers defend themselves against that?
Instead they just automate or move to another country.
if I understand the Lely ledbetter law what it means is the discrimination resets each time someone vbeing discriminated against gets a paycheck so in effect ther is no time limitation as long as one continues to work for the same company. i don’t know why this Lely person waited until she was near retirment to file. perhaps she was afraid of reprisal, a real concern.
but if you quit a company you can’t wait 20 years and then sue.
As a female i do not want to get paid less IF i am doing the same job.
That is not quite the same thing as what is being alleged with unemployed people suing if they don’t get the kob ans an employed person does.
Maybe the Kenyan is thinking ahead to when he is UN-employed, so his a** is covered.
Not alleged. Obama proposed making it illegal to discriminate against people based on their (un)employment history and last week I posted that thread of Matthews defending it. I am surprised that you are surprised. That is what happens when these warm funny fairness ideas are translated into law. That is how discrimination law works.
This discriminates against anyone who is employed and is seeking a better job!
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.