Posted on 10/21/2002 11:48:03 AM PDT by rochester
Rochester, NY - A Greece man, who was fired a few days ago from Eastman Kodak, said giving his opinion in an e-mail lead to his termination. Kodak's diversity group sent out an e-mail asking employees to "be supportive" of colleagues who choose to come out on Gay and Lesbian Coming-Out Day. Rolf Szabo replied to the memo telling the company not to send him this type of information and that he found it "disgusting and offensive."
"I said it and I meant it. I'm not going to take it back," Szabo said.
Although Szabo does not condone the gay lifestyle, he said this isn't a gay issue. Rather, he said, it's an issue of Kodak crossing the line via e-mail.
"I don't need this to do my job. It has nothing to do with gay. It could've been any other topic. It's just that enough is enough. We really don't need this to do our jobs," he said.
Szabo said Kodak wanted him to sign a letter admitting he was wrong. He said after he refused, he was fired. A Kodak spokesperson said Kodak won't comment about personnel issues, but did say that any issues related to the treatment of employees are universal.
Szabo, who had been with Kodak for 23 years working with metals, said he'll get legal advice whether his rights were violated.
Labor and Employment attorney Matt Fusco said that he thinks Szabo has very few options and no chance of winning a lawsuit because employers cannot discriminate.
"If an employer goes a step further and promote diversity--you have no right to oppose that policy," Fusco said.
"The Eastman Kodak Company gives me a paycheck; they don't own me. I'll go somewhere else for a paycheck, that's all," Szabo said.
Whether or not he ends up filing a lawsuit, Szabo said he will pursue the issue claiming Kodak is wrong for catering to a select group versus a larger Kodak community.
You are probably right. However, the lawyer used unfortunate phrasing in defense of this point when he said
"If an employer goes a step further and promote diversity--you have no right to oppose that policy," Fusco said.
Read that again: the Labor lawyer (who let's face it is probably not sympathetic to the employee in this case) comes out with "you have no right to oppose that policy". No right to oppose a policy?
From a legal standpoint, this simply cannot be true. Of course, most likely it was just a Freudian slip by the lawyer, and the company's case rests on more solid ground than that.
Yep, for Kodak, "coming out" day is just before "closing up" day.
If there isn't, there should be!
I've been born-again since August 5, 1965; and joined the NRA during the clintbilly years.
Well, technically, any company is always within its rights to fire anyone. But, if a letter had been circulated that was offensive to gay people, or black people. I don't mean a personal issue just something which offended them, would it have been the same? Wasn't the employee within his rights to say, I am offended by this, much as a female would be if someone sent her a sexual offensive letter. I see no difference.
I, too, would have been offended, disgusted and insulted by this and I think the employer was wrong - dead wrong on this one.
Back in the late 1980s, Argonne National Laboratory managed to demonstrate how pot messed up one's immune system. Essentially, it caused T-cells to be released into the bloodstream before they were fully mature. If you were doing the wacky weed on a regular basis, your T-cell count increased, but they weren't worth a damn in keeping you well.
One of the biggest advocacy groups for "medical marijuana" is made up of AIDS victims. Now, just WHO might have a pecuniary interest in further screwing up an AIDS patient's immune system and killing him off faster? If you said "Your Friendly HMO," you broke-a da code! And when you trace out who FUNDS these groups, the foundations that support "medical marijuana" advocacy groups always seem to be getting big donations from HMOs and HMO industry groups. Of course, it's just a coincidence, nothing to see here, move along.
Ahhh, this will be just another reason that we'll have to implement Xillary! Care (i.e. socialized medicine) and make those evil, discriminating HMO's illegal.
Government (read taxpayers) should foot the bill for the "gay" lifestyle, doncha think?
Actually, Shrillary! Care would have made those evil, discriminating HMOs mandatory.
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.