The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Wait I thought you were okay with discrimination? Why should you care if HH was allegedly fired/passed over because someone in a protected class threatened a lawsuit? The Market will correct this.

 

Though oddly that pressure of lawsuits wouldn't be there if people were be allowed to hire/fire who they please...

[StrangeSox]

The "Market" would correct this because in the "Market" they wouldn't be allowed to file a complaint in the first place.

 

But how would The Market correct all of the instances of racial minority candidates being passed up for being racial minorities? Broad employment, income etc. data support this pretty damn well, and that's in a market where we actually have EEO protections.

 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against anti-discrimination laws, but the standard for proving discrimination is way too low, and there are no protections for people who are actually earning positions/promotions and then having them yanked away via frivolous discrimination claims.

 

Well, this legal scholarship article I googled up paints a very, very different picture of how easy it is to prove employment discrimination.

 

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/vie...ext=lsrp_papers

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you have any sort of citation for that? My understanding is that discrimination lawsuits are actually pretty damn hard to win.

 

 

Don't worry, jenks has assured me that The Market will correct this discrimination!

 

But, I wonder, how does your claim that minorities get all the promotions square with actual data on income, hiring, promotions, etc. more broadly? As far as I can tell, minorities are still heavily underrepresented as you move up the career and income ladders. If the burden of proof really is so low and nobody wants to fight lawsuits (there's always lawsuits?), wouldn't we see a lot more minorities actually getting promotions?

 

They may be hard to win, but they're incredibly easy to settle. If it's going to cost a business 10k to defend a case only to settle it for 15k 6 months later, just give the person the job and be done with it. This is an incredibly common business practice. In fact, I have a buddy who writes insurance policies for businesses and for discrimination lawsuits they just assume anyone who files a claim gets a minimum of 15k, regardless of the strength of the case.

[cabiness42]

Do you have any sort of citation for that? My understanding is that discrimination lawsuits are actually pretty damn hard to win.

 

 

 

Don't worry, jenks has assured me that The Market will correct this discrimination!

 

But, I wonder, how does your claim that minorities get all the promotions square with actual data on income, hiring, promotions, etc. more broadly? As far as I can tell, minorities are still heavily underrepresented as you move up the career and income ladders. If the burden of proof really is so low and nobody wants to fight lawsuits (there's always lawsuits?), wouldn't we see a lot more minorities actually getting promotions?

 

They may be hard to win, but very few go to trial since legal is underfunded and just mandates a settlement most of the time, because from the employe's standpoint settling is less expensive than fighting the lawsuit.

 

Again, I'm not talking about nationwide, but where I work 8 of the last 10 promotions at my level have gone to minorities and the other two to women.

[cabiness42]

Well, this legal scholarship article I googled up paints a very, very different picture of how easy it is to prove employment discrimination.

 

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/vie...ext=lsrp_papers

 

Yes, because all but the absolutely most laughable cases get settled out of court. So there is not a big win rate if it gets to court.

[StrangeSox]

Anti-discrimination laws: just another form of welfare entitlements!

 

Never mind that unemployment across the educational spectrum is higher, businesses always just give the job to that minority who's obviously going to just sue them if they don't.

[cabiness42]

Anti-discrimination laws: just another form of welfare entitlements!

 

Never mind that unemployment across the educational spectrum is higher, businesses always just give the job to that minority who's obviously going to just sue them if they don't.

 

How hard is it to get through your f***ing thick skull that I am talking about a specific situation and not generalzing? Just f***ing go away if you won't engage me on my actual claims.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, because all but the absolutely most laughable cases get settled out of court. So there is not a big win rate if it gets to court.

 

This is literally the introductory paragraph

 

Employment discrimination plaintiffs have a tough row to hoe. They manage

many fewer happy resolutions early in litigation, and so they have to proceed

toward trial more often. They win a lower proportion of cases during pretrial

and at trial. Then, more of their successful cases are appealed. On

appeal, they have a harder time upholding their successes and reversing

adverse outcomes.

 

How do you know that you've been fired or passed over three times because some obviously less-qualified racial minority threatened to sue?

[StrangeSox]

How hard is it to get through your f***ing thick skull that I am talking about a specific situation and not generalzing? Just f***ing go away if you won't engage me on my actual claims.

 

This looks pretty generalized to me!

I do want to point out that the laws that protect classes that have historically been discriminated against, have been abused to the point that people outside those classes often get screwed.

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

That's a pretty bad article for a number of reasons. (1) it's old, (2) you have to look at that stuff regionally as well. I guarantee you Cook County and the ILND will have different numbers than other jurisdictions around the country.

 

Also, does that even address settlements? Looks to me like it just addresses winning/losing at arbitration or at trial.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Surely you could cite something backing up the idea that it's so easy to prove employment discrimination claims that companies routinely either just settle or give the job to the obviously less qualified person, where the obviously less qualified person is obviously the minority.

 

The article is from 2004, anyway. Do we have some reason to expect a big spike in employment discrimination suits and their success rate since then?

 

And yes, the article explicitly and repeatedly talks about lawsuit vs. actually-going-to-trial rates over time. It's all over the entire article so I'm not sure how you could miss it.

Edited February 13, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

They may be hard to win, but very few go to trial since legal is underfunded and just mandates a settlement most of the time, because from the employe's standpoint settling is less expensive than fighting the lawsuit.

 

Again, I'm not talking about nationwide, but where I work 8 of the last 10 promotions at my level have gone to minorities and the other two to women.

I can't speak to your specific situation...but there is very solid evidence out there that "Having more diverse management staffs/boards of directors" leads to better business outcomes nationwide. The more diverse the upper levels of the workforce, the more companies are able to effectively deal with the types of issues that do appear in a diverse society.

 

If all other things are close to equal, it will actually benefit the company to give preference to a diverse management level force. It provides significant business benefits.

[cabiness42]

This is literally the introductory paragraph

 

 

 

How do you know that you've been fired or passed over three times because some obviously less-qualified racial minority threatened to sue?

 

1) Applied for a position. I had very unique experience that clearly made me the best candidate for the position. I got the job. A black woman who didn't meet the qualifications for the position filed an EEO complaint that the job requirement of having a degree was discriminatory, even though every job at this level had required a college degree as long as anybody knew. Legal determined that it was not in their best interests to fight her claim and directed that the position be re-posted without the education requirement.

 

2) Re-applied for the position. Because I was still the best qualified person for the position, I got the job again. (The hiring official was also a black woman, by the way). The same woman filed another EEO complaint, stating that she was not given the position due to retaliation from her previous complaint. Legal again said that it was not in their best interests to fight her claim and directed that she be given the position.

 

3) In the meantime, a position at the same level in a different department opened up. I did not apply for that position, but a different black woman did and was passed over. She filed an EEO complaint. While her complaint was pending, the first woman went on indefinite medical leave. So, to resolve the second woman's complaint, they gave her the first woman's position (instead of the one she applied for) even though she had no experience in this area. So the position was never posted for me to have a chance to get it.

 

[Soxbadger]

Sounds like maybe you need better legal??

 

Or maybe you arent privileged to all of the facts, because I dont have many clients who just roll over and play dead for no reason. Its usually when I find that theyve done something really wrong and I dont want the powers to be to know about the even worse action so I just settle the first.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I don't see where the EEOC has jurisdiction to cover "discrimination" of a job requiring a certain level of education/training/certification etc.

 

edit: maybe under this?

 

Race/Color Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices

An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of race or color, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a particular race or color and is not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. For example, a “no-beard” employment policy that applies to all workers without regard to race may still be unlawful if it is not job-related and has a negative impact on the employment of African-American men (who have a predisposition to a skin condition that causes severe shaving bumps).

 

 

Edited February 13, 2014 by StrangeSox

[cabiness42]

Sounds like maybe you need better legal??

 

Or maybe you arent privileged to all of the facts, because I dont have many clients who just roll over and play dead for no reason. Its usually when I find that theyve done something really wrong and I dont want the powers to be to know about the even worse action so I just settle the first.

 

You've probably never had clients as incompetent as the Federal Government.

[cabiness42]

I don't see where the EEOC has jurisdiction to cover "discrimination" of a job requiring a certain level of education/training/certification etc.

 

edit: maybe under this?

 

Yes, I'm aware of the clause that was cited, but it's pretty much a joke to argue that a degree is not essential to managing a 450+ employee operation with an operating budget over $10M per year.

[Jenksismyhero]

Surely you could cite something backing up the idea that it's so easy to prove employment discrimination claims that companies routinely either just settle or give the job to the obviously less qualified person, where the obviously less qualified person is obviously the minority.

 

The article is from 2004, anyway. Do we have some reason to expect a big spike in employment discrimination suits and their success rate since then?

 

And yes, the article explicitly and repeatedly talks about lawsuit vs. actually-going-to-trial rates over time. It's all over the entire article so I'm not sure how you could miss it.

 

You're missing the point - it doesn't matter if you can prove the case, if the case is s*** and it's going to cost you 15k to get a dismissal, 9 out of 10 defendants will just pay to settle the case. This is routine. I do this for a living. Sometimes the Plaintiff continues the case anyway and loses, sometimes they don't. But that's the general procedure for nearly every case filed that deals with discrimination. This article on page 440 says 70% of cases settle and "more and more do so with the passing years." If my job is any indication, I guarantee you this has gone up.

 

Yes, I consider 2004 old. It's using data from 1979 through 2001.

 

edit: and it really shouldn't be a surprise that these cases are difficult to win. Proving overt racism is difficult. Employers have had decades of time to hammer in policies to prevent discrimination from occurring. If it's overt, an employer is going to pay. If it's crap, it'll get dismissed for a small settlement or dismissed. The rest are "arguable" and are difficult to show. You have to infer what's going on.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

You've probably never had clients as incompetent as the Federal Government.

 

So you work for the federal govt and were comparing private employers?

 

That would be the disconnect.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Soxbadger

[cabiness42]

So you work for the federal govt and were comparing private employers?

 

That would be the disconnect.

 

I wasn't comparing anything to private employers. I was talking about how I have personally been f***ed over three times by EEO laws.

[Soxbadger]

I wasn't comparing anything to private employers. I was talking about how I have personally been f***ed over three times by EEO laws.

 

That may or may not be the case, but (at least I was) talking about private employers, so that does not include federal employees.

[cabiness42]

That may or may not be the case, but (at least I was) talking about private employers, so that does not include federal employees.

 

So reverse discrimination is OK if it's a government employee??

[Soxbadger]

So reverse discrimination is OK if it's a government employee??

 

I dont believe I said that. I believe that the govt is probably more concerned about discrimination complaints than a regular employer and thus may be quicker to settle.

 

I dont know what happened, I wasnt there. I represent private clients, they dont just give away jobs due to a threat of litigation.

[farmteam]

Well, this legal scholarship article I googled up paints a very, very different picture of how easy it is to prove employment discrimination.

 

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/vie...ext=lsrp_papers

Ha, I actually cited to that article in my appellate writing class last year. I was defending the position of a white plaintiff who had been passed over for a promotion in favor of a minority. Nothing substantive, just for the proposition that the number of civil claims generally has remained steady while the number of employment discrimination claims has declined.

 

Had to argue for a clarification/change to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework used for Title VII reverse discrimination cases. Under that framework, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove a prima facie case of discrimination. To do that, a plaintiff must demonstrate:

 

(i) That (s)he belongs to a racial minority;

(ii) that (s)he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants;

(iii) that, despite his/her qualifications, (s)he was rejected; and

(iv) that, after his/her rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant’s qualifications

 

Obviously, reverse discrimination plaintiffs could never prove they belong to a racial minority. So the D.C. Circuit in 1981 developed this component called "background circumstances" that would be substituted for the racial minority prong for a reverse discrimination plaintiff. It meant that reverse discrimination plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination when background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.

 

Some other circuits have adopted the background circumstances component. Another circuit (10th) has modified it, another (3rd) uses a "totality of the circumstances" approach and another (6th) just disregarded the racial minority prong entirely. I argued that the background circumstances component wasn't consistent with Supreme Court precedent (namely McDonnell Douglas, McDonald, Furnco and Burdine). It was an interesting assignment.

[cabiness42]

I dont believe I said that. I believe that the govt is probably more concerned about discrimination complaints than a regular employer and thus may be quicker to settle.

 

I dont know what happened, I wasnt there. I represent private clients, they dont just give away jobs due to a threat of litigation.

 

This, whether intentional or not, results in discrimination against the qualified people who were given the job and then had it taken away.