So if you, for instance, say in a firm, level voice at normal speaking volume that "the work is not up to standard and that it will have to be redone to met an important customer deadline" and, in response, she cries, are you then guilty of sex discrimination under the "reasonable woman standard"?
I've got a feeling this standard is like the famous Supreme Court justice pronouncement concerning obscene materials "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it!"
I notice that the 9th Circuit is citing its own precedents in making this ruling just as it did in the Pledge case last week.
"So if you, for instance, say in a firm, level voice at normal speaking volume that "the work is not up to standard and that it will have to be redone to met an important customer deadline" and, in response, she cries, are you then guilty of sex discrimination under the "reasonable woman standard"? "
Yes. There is a major engineering company in the Houston area that has that policy.
This occured at the NEA (the national teachers union). The teaching profession is predominantly female. I have a feeling that the NEA has a high percentage of women.
How much you want to be that the real reason for this lawsuit is a bunch of feminist women at the NEA wanting to tilt the playing field so that no male executive can ever dare to attempt to discipline a female subordinate? This would mean that only a female exec could be hired to supervise women (thus creating more demand for female execs over the short term, but also a long-term trend towrads outsourcing to places that did not have such an insane legal system)