Another pharmacist getting the axe,this time for rummors of being an alcoholic and lesbien, corporate states to her, this is not the image they want portrayed!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... seems to me a lawsuit personal life, as long as it doesnt interfere with job whats the big deal or some think.......
Another one gets the axe
-
princessladedah
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:03 pm
Another one gets the axe
Being an alcoholic? Well I suppose I can undestand the companies point on that it could interfere with her work and her mistake could be costly if not downright dangerous.
As for her sexual preference I dont see why that has any bearing on her work unless she is harassing other employees.
As for her sexual preference I dont see why that has any bearing on her work unless she is harassing other employees.
Another one gets the axe
For rumours of??
Does the US have nothing equivalent to The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003?
It is unlawful for an employer, in relation to a person whom he employs at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against that person -
(a) in the terms of employment which he affords him;
(b) in the opportunities which he affords him for promotion, a transfer, training, or receiving any other benefit;
(c) by refusing to afford him, or deliberately not affording him, any such opportunity; or
(d) by dismissing him, or subjecting him to any other detriment.
For the purposes of these Regulations, a person ("A") discriminates against another person ("B") if -
(a) on grounds of sexual orientation, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or
(b) A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same sexual orientation as B, but -
(i) which puts or would put persons of the same sexual orientation as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons,
(ii) which puts B at that disadvantage, and
(iii) which A cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Does the US have nothing equivalent to The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003?
It is unlawful for an employer, in relation to a person whom he employs at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against that person -
(a) in the terms of employment which he affords him;
(b) in the opportunities which he affords him for promotion, a transfer, training, or receiving any other benefit;
(c) by refusing to afford him, or deliberately not affording him, any such opportunity; or
(d) by dismissing him, or subjecting him to any other detriment.
For the purposes of these Regulations, a person ("A") discriminates against another person ("B") if -
(a) on grounds of sexual orientation, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or
(b) A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same sexual orientation as B, but -
(i) which puts or would put persons of the same sexual orientation as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons,
(ii) which puts B at that disadvantage, and
(iii) which A cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Another one gets the axe
We've got a little thing to protect us here in the US:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Another one gets the axe
Fyrenza;1205432 wrote: We've got a little thing to protect us here in the US:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)"The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce the protections that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation"? That's the "little thing to protect us here in the US"?
I've just had a look at your link - I can't see any employment protection at all on there regarding discrimination for sexual orientation apart from a Clinton executive order to federal employers. Can you quote which bit applies to non-government workers?
Facts About Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation Discrimination discusses it and says the nearest there is to employment protection against discrimination for sexual orientation is that "The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on "conduct" to include discrimination based on sexual orientation".
It's all about "Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Federal Civilian Employment", from what I can see. Their entire discussion relates to discrimination within government employment and has nothing to do with bringing cases against private or public companies who discriminate.
There are no employment tribunals? An individual employee is meant to bring a legal case in a full court of law and claim compensation and reinstatement on the grounds that their "conduct" had been illegally discriminated against, where the onus of proof is against the employee? I don't think most people would have the financial resources to do that.
What you need is a more effective trades union for pharmacists.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)"The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce the protections that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation"? That's the "little thing to protect us here in the US"?
I've just had a look at your link - I can't see any employment protection at all on there regarding discrimination for sexual orientation apart from a Clinton executive order to federal employers. Can you quote which bit applies to non-government workers?
Facts About Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation Discrimination discusses it and says the nearest there is to employment protection against discrimination for sexual orientation is that "The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on "conduct" to include discrimination based on sexual orientation".
It's all about "Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Federal Civilian Employment", from what I can see. Their entire discussion relates to discrimination within government employment and has nothing to do with bringing cases against private or public companies who discriminate.
There are no employment tribunals? An individual employee is meant to bring a legal case in a full court of law and claim compensation and reinstatement on the grounds that their "conduct" had been illegally discriminated against, where the onus of proof is against the employee? I don't think most people would have the financial resources to do that.
What you need is a more effective trades union for pharmacists.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Another one gets the axe
When I read the title I thought someone else was banned. Seems to be the in thing these days. wonder if I should have said that :-3
Another one gets the axe
spot;1205436 wrote: "The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce the protections that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation"? That's the "little thing to protect us here in the US"?
I've just had a look at your link - I can't see any employment protection at all on there regarding discrimination for sexual orientation apart from a Clinton executive order to federal employers. Can you quote which bit applies to non-government workers?
Facts About Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation Discrimination discusses it and says the nearest there is to employment protection against discrimination for sexual orientation is that "The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on "conduct" to include discrimination based on sexual orientation".
It's all about "Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Federal Civilian Employment", from what I can see. Their entire discussion relates to discrimination within government employment and has nothing to do with bringing cases against private or public companies who discriminate.
There are no employment tribunals? An individual employee is meant to bring a legal case in a full court of law and claim compensation and reinstatement on the grounds that their "conduct" had been illegally discriminated against, where the onus of proof is against the employee? I don't think most people would have the financial resources to do that.
What you need is a more effective trades union for pharmacists.
Im fairly certain a rational employer would not fire an employee for sexual preference. Thats just not the society we live in anymore. Thats not an absolute but every company Ive worked for incorporated tolerance in training for fellow workers regarding race religion sexual preference. Big no no to address these issues in the workplace today. I dont hear these things being discussed from co-workers.
I live in a progressive liberal state thankfully but the rules are the same everywhere.
Id suggest she was projecting her own feelings onto others.
I've just had a look at your link - I can't see any employment protection at all on there regarding discrimination for sexual orientation apart from a Clinton executive order to federal employers. Can you quote which bit applies to non-government workers?
Facts About Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation Discrimination discusses it and says the nearest there is to employment protection against discrimination for sexual orientation is that "The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on "conduct" to include discrimination based on sexual orientation".
It's all about "Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Federal Civilian Employment", from what I can see. Their entire discussion relates to discrimination within government employment and has nothing to do with bringing cases against private or public companies who discriminate.
There are no employment tribunals? An individual employee is meant to bring a legal case in a full court of law and claim compensation and reinstatement on the grounds that their "conduct" had been illegally discriminated against, where the onus of proof is against the employee? I don't think most people would have the financial resources to do that.
What you need is a more effective trades union for pharmacists.
Im fairly certain a rational employer would not fire an employee for sexual preference. Thats just not the society we live in anymore. Thats not an absolute but every company Ive worked for incorporated tolerance in training for fellow workers regarding race religion sexual preference. Big no no to address these issues in the workplace today. I dont hear these things being discussed from co-workers.
I live in a progressive liberal state thankfully but the rules are the same everywhere.
Id suggest she was projecting her own feelings onto others.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Another one gets the axe
All I can do is refer you back to the opening post. You're arguing a difference of fact from the information provided.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Another one gets the axe
Nomad;1206013 wrote: I see the word rumors.
The firing's not a rumor, just the allegation. The reason for the firing's given as "corporate states to her, this is not the image they want portrayed!". How more discriminatory against sexual orientation can a firing get?
The firing's not a rumor, just the allegation. The reason for the firing's given as "corporate states to her, this is not the image they want portrayed!". How more discriminatory against sexual orientation can a firing get?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Another one gets the axe
spot;1206014 wrote: The firing's not a rumor, just the allegation. The reason for the firing's given as "corporate states to her, this is not the image they want portrayed!". How more discriminatory against sexual orientation can a firing get?
Where did the info come from ?
Corporate doesnt divulge info like that.
I still suggest either the terminated person was blowing off steam on the way out the door or rumors are the culprit.
Where did the info come from ?
Corporate doesnt divulge info like that.
I still suggest either the terminated person was blowing off steam on the way out the door or rumors are the culprit.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Another one gets the axe
Nomad;1206015 wrote: Where did the info come from ?
Corporate doesnt divulge info like that.
I still suggest either the terminated person was blowing off steam on the way out the door or rumors are the culprit.
"corporate states to her" is all we have to go on, and given the state of your labor laws I find it credible enough. All there is to go on is the opening post. Sure it might be a lie but why would it be? What practical recourse does a worker have in that situation other than to look of a new job? What realistic chance is there of getting as far as winning a court case and being significantly compensated?
Corporate doesnt divulge info like that.
I still suggest either the terminated person was blowing off steam on the way out the door or rumors are the culprit.
"corporate states to her" is all we have to go on, and given the state of your labor laws I find it credible enough. All there is to go on is the opening post. Sure it might be a lie but why would it be? What practical recourse does a worker have in that situation other than to look of a new job? What realistic chance is there of getting as far as winning a court case and being significantly compensated?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Another one gets the axe
spot;1206018 wrote: "corporate states to her" is all we have to go on, and given the state of your labor laws I find it credible enough. All there is to go on is the opening post. Sure it might be a lie but why would it be? What practical recourse does a worker have in that situation other than to look of a new job? What realistic chance is there of getting as far as winning a court case and being significantly compensated?
The source of "Corporate states to her is" is essential in weeding out the truth.
Ive never experienced corporate releasing any type of info on an individual to the rest of the staff. It would be idiotic for them to do so considering the liability factor.
If they did thats a whole different lawsuit. I find it difficult to believe any employer would state lesbianism not being what were trying to represent being stated as a reason especially to their face as a reason for being terminated.
Since rumors have already been established and rumors being what they are Im inclined to side with the truth hasnt been exposed.
The source of "Corporate states to her is" is essential in weeding out the truth.
Ive never experienced corporate releasing any type of info on an individual to the rest of the staff. It would be idiotic for them to do so considering the liability factor.
If they did thats a whole different lawsuit. I find it difficult to believe any employer would state lesbianism not being what were trying to represent being stated as a reason especially to their face as a reason for being terminated.
Since rumors have already been established and rumors being what they are Im inclined to side with the truth hasnt been exposed.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Another one gets the axe
Nomad;1206025 wrote: The source of "Corporate states to her is" is essential in weeding out the truth.
Ive never experienced corporate releasing any type of info on an individual to the rest of the staff. It would be idiotic for them to do so considering the liability factor.
If they did thats a whole different lawsuit. I find it difficult to believe any employer would state lesbianism not being what were trying to represent being stated as a reason especially to their face as a reason for being terminated.
Since rumors have already been established and rumors being what they are Im inclined to side with the truth hasnt been exposed.
Even if you assume the opening post is entirely accurate there's still the question of whether it's against US employment law. I dug out what I think indicates there's no case for the employer to answer but for some reason you seem to think there is. What do you base that idea on?
Ive never experienced corporate releasing any type of info on an individual to the rest of the staff. It would be idiotic for them to do so considering the liability factor.
If they did thats a whole different lawsuit. I find it difficult to believe any employer would state lesbianism not being what were trying to represent being stated as a reason especially to their face as a reason for being terminated.
Since rumors have already been established and rumors being what they are Im inclined to side with the truth hasnt been exposed.
Even if you assume the opening post is entirely accurate there's still the question of whether it's against US employment law. I dug out what I think indicates there's no case for the employer to answer but for some reason you seem to think there is. What do you base that idea on?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Another one gets the axe
spot;1206028 wrote: Even if you assume the opening post is entirely accurate there's still the question of whether it's against US employment law. I dug out what I think indicates there's no case for the employer to answer but for some reason you seem to think there is. What do you base that idea on?
Your question is unclear.
Only about 11 states have mandated specific rights for gay and lesbian individuals which would include the workplace.
That said companies themselves overall have initiated fair practices concerning equality for all individuals.
Basing a firing on sexual preference is taboo. Calling someone a derogatory word based on sexual preference or race would be cause for instant dismissal in any location Ive ever worked at.
Im basing my call on experience.
My experience tells me we cant assume the opening statement is accurate.
Your question is unclear.
Only about 11 states have mandated specific rights for gay and lesbian individuals which would include the workplace.
That said companies themselves overall have initiated fair practices concerning equality for all individuals.
Basing a firing on sexual preference is taboo. Calling someone a derogatory word based on sexual preference or race would be cause for instant dismissal in any location Ive ever worked at.
Im basing my call on experience.
My experience tells me we cant assume the opening statement is accurate.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Another one gets the axe
Nomad;1206035 wrote: Your question is unclear.For some reason what you chose to highlight wasn't a question. The only question I wrote there was "What do you base that idea on?" which doesn't seem unclear at all.
Only about 11 states have mandated specific rights for gay and lesbian individuals which would include the workplace.That's where we need to go - maybe you got 11 from a webpage in which case I'd quite like to read it too, please.
That said companies themselves overall have initiated fair practices concerning equality for all individuals.
You're surely missing "some" companies. Congratulations to them but I bet it's in their demands on workers, not in their promises.
Only about 11 states have mandated specific rights for gay and lesbian individuals which would include the workplace.That's where we need to go - maybe you got 11 from a webpage in which case I'd quite like to read it too, please.
That said companies themselves overall have initiated fair practices concerning equality for all individuals.
You're surely missing "some" companies. Congratulations to them but I bet it's in their demands on workers, not in their promises.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Another one gets the axe
spot;1206109 wrote: For some reason what you chose to highlight wasn't a question. The only question I wrote there was "What do you base that idea on?" which doesn't seem unclear at all.
That's where we need to go - maybe you got 11 from a webpage in which case I'd quite like to read it too, please.
You're surely missing "some" companies. Congratulations to them but I bet it's in their demands on workers, not in their promises.
With all respect I think you have a misguided view of what goes on over here spock.
Ive worked in many different types of industries. I cant think of one co. Ive worked for that didnt incorporate fair practices into their training. That goes for mngt. as well. Im not exactly sure what you envision our workplaces to be like but I assure you there are some very strict standards applied to fair treatment of all individuals with several avenues available for confronting grievances and violations of policy.
Not to mention I just never hear people talk in a derogatory sense about African Americans or Latin Americans or gays or lesbians or pick a cause.
Ive never witnessed bigotry in the workplace on any level.
Im not stupid, I know its out there, I understand racism and unfair practices exist but its a very small minority. Not the norm in any shape or form. Ive usually enjoyed the company of my bosses. Theres nothing extraordinary or evil going on. Im not seeing it.
That's where we need to go - maybe you got 11 from a webpage in which case I'd quite like to read it too, please.
You're surely missing "some" companies. Congratulations to them but I bet it's in their demands on workers, not in their promises.
With all respect I think you have a misguided view of what goes on over here spock.
Ive worked in many different types of industries. I cant think of one co. Ive worked for that didnt incorporate fair practices into their training. That goes for mngt. as well. Im not exactly sure what you envision our workplaces to be like but I assure you there are some very strict standards applied to fair treatment of all individuals with several avenues available for confronting grievances and violations of policy.
Not to mention I just never hear people talk in a derogatory sense about African Americans or Latin Americans or gays or lesbians or pick a cause.
Ive never witnessed bigotry in the workplace on any level.
Im not stupid, I know its out there, I understand racism and unfair practices exist but its a very small minority. Not the norm in any shape or form. Ive usually enjoyed the company of my bosses. Theres nothing extraordinary or evil going on. Im not seeing it.
I AM AWESOME MAN