An interesting case in the Supreme Court now

[boates]

An employee of Cracker Barrel (?) noticed that in "his opinion" there was racial discrimination going on. So "he" lodged a complaint, and was subsequently fired. "He" then went on to lodge an unlawful firing suit, claiming retaliation firing(from the company) due to a racial discrimination complaint. Here's the kick...the company claims that because "he" wasn't discriminated against(personally), "he" was fired because "he" complained.

I don't get it........so this guy stands up for what is right.......whammo

This couldn't happen here in Canada, because of our Human Rights(&employee) Laws

This from J Lehrer Newsweek PBS show

[rye_a]

Originally Posted by boates

An employee of Cracker Barrel (?) noticed that in "his opinion" there was racial discrimination going on. So "he" lodged a complaint, and was subsequently fired. "He" then went on to lodge an unlawful firing suit, claiming retaliation firing(from the company) due to a racial discrimination complaint. Here's the kick...the company claims that because "he" wasn't discriminated against(personally), "he" was fired because "he" complained.

I don't get it........so this guy stands up for what is right.......whammo

This couldn't happen here in Canada, because of our Human Rights(&employee) Laws

This from J Lehrer Newsweek PBS show

What happened with the suit for discrimination (was the charge ever substantiated and brought to trial)? One person's opinion may vary significantly from another's, and if the courts deemed that there was no discrimination then the whistle-blower's complaint was baseless. There are also a lot of facts missing such as: what was this person's history? Were they a trouble maker/rabble rouser in other instances?

There just aren't enough facts here to come to a conclusion.

Oh yeah, and we all know that everything's better in Canada.

[boates]

not saying everythings better in Canada.....I happen to be a displaced American............
This story was presented on an American news show, and is being heard in the American Supreme Court, I think(who'am I) all the issues you've mentioned would've already been addressed, to get this far.

I just thought it was an interesting issue.

[fireflock]

As a displaced American, you probably understand that major media outlets always take time to get the facts straight and report all the details.

For example, stories about divers who ran out of 'oxygen' in their tanks.

[boates]

Yea, I know.............but anyone that's watched the Jim Lehrer Newshour show (PBS) knows how painfully dry. dull and how accurate it can be!!!
Again I thought this was interesting...

[fireflock]

I understand. I don't know jack about the case, other than hearing about it in passing. On the other hand, I've noticed that the 'news' is seldom accurate when it come to topics I know about, so I have to wonder too about the topics with which I'm not familiar.

[caroln]

Isn't there a whistleblower act that protects people in cases like this?

I remember from my harassment training here at work that if you filed a complaint in good faith, meaning that a reasonable person would have issue with the behavior you reported, you were protected from retaliation for being the reporter--even if you were not the victim. This included racial based harassment.

[thor]

Is this the case? You may have misunderstood the issues

HEDRICK G. HUMPHRIES, v. CBOCS WEST, INC., Defendant-Appellee.


This case was just argued before the Supreme Court. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether one particular statute (§ 1981) covers retaliation cases, when it was originally designed to protect people directly from the actual discrimination itself. There is already a statute which clearly covers retaliation cases (Title VII), however the plainitff chose to sue under a different statute, probably because it is quicker to get to trial, than Title VII.


Here is a brief from the Supreme Court, if you are interested in the issues.
CBOCS West v. Humphries - ScotusWiki


.

[PlatypusMan]

Originally Posted by caroln

Isn't there a whistleblower act that protects people in cases like this?

I remember from my harassment training here at work that if you filed a complaint in good faith, meaning that a reasonable person would have issue with the behavior you reported, you were protected from retaliation for being the reporter--even if you were not the victim. This included racial based harassment.

Welcome to the world of work ca. 2008.

The common theme I see more and more of is an attitude in some businesses to 'violate, then litigate'--working on the assumption that the party with the most money to fight with will usually prevail when the other side runs out of funds to continue the litigation--even though a clear violation of law has occurred.

(Note that we're usually speaking of civil, rather than criminal law, wherein the State with [technically] unlimited [taxpayer] funds to draw on can continue in court nearly indefinitely as the complainant.)

PPM
Note: I am not a Lawyer, nor do I play one on a liveaboard. So there!