Posted on 06/15/2020 7:22:54 AM PDT by Stravinsky
Washington — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is illegal for an employer to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, delivering a major victory in the fight for civil rights for LGBT people.
The court's 6-3 ruling extends the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion, to include LGBT people. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the majority's opinion, joined the liberal wing of the bench in ruling that "an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Don’t even need to claim that, since thanks to the freaks we have like 120 sexual preferences to choose from, and ALL of them are protected now thanks to the Supreme Court. Or you can just make up your own!
I’m going to claim to be an Orionosexual. I’m only attracted to the green-skinned alien women on Star Trek.
Business reorganization
Done
The Funeral Home could have let tranny dude operate for a few months and if sales went down, fire him/her/it and then the business owner takes over the position and call it reorganization
Done
Never mention he/she/it was gay and dressed like a freak that scared away customers. This is his/her/it problem. His problem was that he/she/it wasn’t bringing in money, and owner decided, he can do the job better and fire him/her/it for non performance.
Never ever say I fired that employee because he/she/it was a homo.
“Never ever say I fired that employee because he/she/it was a homo.”
Doesn’t matter, you can still be sued, held liable, fined, put under a consent order, etc, even if you never say that. That’s what “disparate impact” is for. They simply demonstrate that you haven’t hired enough homos, or trannies, or whatever, and they don’t need to demonstrate what your motivation was. The court will assume that, based on the end result, there must be some systemic discrimination happening, even if you have all sorts of other explanations ready at hand.
Sounds like a thought crime at that point
However a paper trail is the best thing to use as a defense.
Sales down while that employee was hired is a good example
Sales up after the employee was fired is more good proof
You can always fire for cause
You can always fire for no cause
Just as a long as the cause isn’t he’s a homo or he’s black or he’s Christian or any protected group, you are fine.
The employee was hired, so obviously the employer wasn’t discriminating, if the owner hated homos, he would have never hired a homo in the first place Exhibit 1
Sales were down, the three months, the funeral home was losing money, employee was unable to close sales, ownership had to make a business decision, either fire the employee not making sales or go out of business and liquidate. Ownership fired employee for not making sales targets over the past three months. Exhibit 2
Ownership appointed himself in the sales position, sales were return to normal month over month averages and the business was saved from liquidation. Exhibit 3
No, I’m not. The law is about firing people, NOT not hiring someone. SUre, it may be contrary to the spirit of the legislative intent, but the point is, there is always plausible deniability which can soften the impact of this
“The law is about firing people, NOT not hiring someone.”
No, that is not true. The law covers discrimination in hiring also, as well as a host of other things.
“it may be contrary to the spirit of the legislative intent”
Yes, it clearly is. You’re on the one hand defending the decision, and the ramifications it has for the law, and on the other hand, advising people to just disobey the law when the point out the negative ramifications it is going to have. That’s hypocrisy. If the law is good, then there is no need to circumvent it, and if the law needs to be circumvented, then it is not good.
“Just as a long as the cause isn’t he’s a homo or he’s black or he’s Christian or any protected group, you are fine.”
Sorry, but that is no longer true, and it hasn’t been true for decades. You can be held liable even if you have 100 good excuses for every firing (or not hiring). The courts do not base their judgement on that anymore if a case is brought under the “disparate impact” criteria:
“... a disparate-impact claim does not require proof of an intention to discriminate. Instead, showing that a facially neutral employment practice has a disproportionately adverse impact on a protected group states a prima facie case of unlawful disparate-impact discrimination.”
You would have to prove that a company would fire employees lets say at age 59 so they can’t collect their pensions at age 60, if you can round up a dozen or so employees where this had happened, you can demonstrate that.
But an isolated incident where sales in a funeral home were down for three consecutive months without course of action from the employee who was well aware of the decline in sales. well that is going to be hard to prove that the funeral home owner hated homos unless the owner had a history of firing homos.
No, that is not how it works. Those would be an entirely different type of discrimination case, not disparate impact cases.
In a disparate impact case, the plaintiff doesn’t need to demonstrate that you intended any discrimination at all. The courts would just look at the results of your policies and then decide that, based on those results alone, you were either engaging in discrimination or not, regardless of your intentions, and regardless of any excuses you present.
So to adapt one of your examples, they could just say “Homosexuals make up about 3% of the local population in Smallsville, but they only represent 1% of the employees of your business located in Smallsville. Therefore your employment practices are determined to be discriminatory.”
And, they will come under scrutiny if they want to fire you.
So identifying as a blk les. has multiple benefits!!
When I worked for a short time on assignment in HR for a big company in the 90’s, I saw that when they fired a black Supervisor, that they required her to sign a statement that she would not be later bringing a discrimination suit against the company, in exchange for a negotiated $10,000 severance payout.
That’s right.. Reparations are happening all of the time!!
Do you think a white (straight) male that was fired would be getting such a payout???
I wonder if their stockholders know that those kind of preemptive payouts to minorities go on all of the time... Just part of the operating expenses of a big company...
Roberts (W Bush’s fault) *Federalist Society
Gorsuch (Trump’s fault) *Federalist Society
Kavanaugh (Trump’s fault) *Federalist Society
Alito (JAN 31, 2006, W Bush’s fault) *Federalist Society
Thomas (OCT 23, 1991, H W Bush’s fault) *Federalist Society
I am going to identify as a retired senator and demand my pension. Who wants to join me?
you can still,fire people if business income can’t support them all
or everyone’s an independent contractor.
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.