How can they say this? Of course it is pertinent. Our legal sysem is imploding. Any testimony to find the truth shouild be allowed. So Ok legal scum – if not pertinent what about her privacy issues? Other employees easily saw this information.
I can’t imagin a company would fire someone who is productive. That’s contrary to good business practice. I would hate to think that it is harder for me to fire a forgetful old geezer than to fire a perfectly competent young/white/male person.
In a free country, employers can hire whom they want. In a dictatorship, the “subjects” are told with whom they must associate.
In a free country, workers can be let go for any reason, even due to the well-known, axiomatic ravages of age. In a dictatorship, employers are told by Big Brother that they may not fire slow geezers no matter what the drain on the bottom line.
This ruling is a vote for freedom, and you geniuses lament that fact.
Lets hope there are still have laws against age bias when you get to be one of the “slow Geezers”. Oops! Maybe you’re already there. Your comment has all the markings of senility/lost of true reality.
Hell, I’m older than the gal in this story. Please tell me where I’m wrong. Please. Do you want to live in a free country or not? If you restrict your neighbor’s freedom regarding his own property, by placing innumerable restrictions on his behavior, then he is not free. If you agree with that, you are an oppressor. No bones about it.
So call me names, mock etc., but I wish someone would debate the merits of my statement instead. Freedom is hard, and so is arguing against it, which is why you won’t.
Slaves were pensioned in the old South, did you know that? The plantations couldn’t just cut them lose when they were no longer at peak production, they had to continue to feed, clothe and shelter them until they died. Kinda like you’re arguing for.
If the testimony of the other employees is indeed just hearsay it should be easy to show that. I agree that we should not be placing limits on who can testify in a court case regardless of who is actually named in the suit. Reversing this ruling is the beginning on a course down a very slippery slope.
As tough as it is for all of us to realize/accept…one day we too, will get older and less productive. We have a shelf life…we should not expect to be paid for production we don’t accomplish. If that were the case we would have 60 year old athletes playing professional sports, breaking their hips and running in slow motion compared to their younger counterparts. The entertainment value may be diminished slightly if that were the case and some might lose interest…then they would all be out of a job, wouldn’t they?
How would you like to pay for a house that was built by 80 year old workers? IF the house was ever finished, would it stand with a good breeze blowing on it? Would it cost 3 times as much because it took 3 times as long? Would you want your children living in that house?
Is it possible you might want to rethink your stance on this issue? I’m not the economic think tank, per say, so I could be wrong.
Maybe…just maybe…people should be expected to take care of themselves when they get older, i.e. savings, 401K, more children, etc as their safety net rather than expect their employer to do it. In addition, weren’t they paid for services rendered when they rendered them? Why does the employer become liable, in your opinion, for un-equal services rendered in the future?
The U.S. was a capitalist/free enterprise system last I checked. You are welcome to disagree, that is your right, but you are also welcome to move to Great Britain or China to experience what they have to offer.
Don’t confuse dismissal due to “inability to perform job functions” and age. They’re separate issues. It’s the same reason why woman have had to deal with the glass ceiling – she might have a baby or put her children before her job. If the dismissals were based on age over 50 -it’s just as discriminatory as if it was based on age under 30, race, or any other personal factor unrelated to business need and performance.
“…any other personal factor unrelated to business need and performance.”
According to who, you? The state? A mob (democracy)? REPEAT: In a free society no one tells you with whom you must associate. See the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of free association. Helloooo…?
If the govt can tell you whom you must allow in your building or work with, regardless of the First Amendment, then what’s to stop it from breaking other tethers the Bill of Rights places on govt?
The whole “civil rights” thing is completely arbitrary, and therefore in the blink of an eye whole new “protected classes” can be elevated to privileged status while those now enjoying it can lose it by a vote, or a Supreme Court decision. Remember the news item a few years back about the deaf lifeguard suing because he couldn’t get hired? Where does it stop?
“Don’t confuse dismissal due to “inability to perform job functions” and age. They’re separate issues.”
I still agree with Al on the issue as a whole.
As to your response above…the burden of proof is for Sprint to show she was “unable to perform” or maybe the lady was of the 5 worst at her postion and Sprint was creating a more efficient workforce by firing the woman? We don’t know the answer or the reason at this point.
The woman is suing solely based on age discrimination…not lack of performance or inability to perform. We are discussing this issue as if the latter two didn’t exist.
For the same reason that “Reality Check” is assuming that the lady was fired because of her age, we should also be discussing the possibility that she could be a bad worker. Maybe her age plays a part in that too? We have no idea what she did there…maybe she was in sales and she has Alzheimer’s and can’t remember the product line? If that’s the case…should models sue modeling companies because they get fired for having too many wrinkles or too much junk in the trunk?
Do you think we should all have agency to do and act as we please under the guise of “freedom”? That sounds nice, but I admit, I just plain don’t trust other people to be responsible with -that- kind of freedom.
Since it’s going to be a few more paychecks before I can buy my own island, I’m going to have to live in this country for a while.
There’s no reason to assume my productivity will significantly decrease the day after I turn 50. If anything, I will be BETTER at my job, as I will have gained more wisdom and experience.
I’m not advocating for employers to be forced to retain a worker simply because they’re over 50, but I think they should have a better reason for cutting them loose than the fact that someone younger will work for less money.
There’s a happy medium somewhere in here. Freedom can still be freedom with some reasonable and clearly defined boundaries (based in ethics and common sense), can’t it?
Once again, we are discussing this as if we already KNOW that the lady was doing her job well and was capable of doing it at her age…we, unfortunately, do not have that information.
Not to mention, even if she was doing her job well, the company may have needed to downsize.
For example, let’s say you own a landscape company with 10 employees. Recently you lost a contract with a client and you must downsize immediately because you can’t afford to do business paying 10 employees to 8 employees’ worth of work. Who do you let go? The oldest employee that may not work but a few more years because they will retire or would be unable to? The youngest employee because they haven’t been there as long as the others? The slowest workers..age not being a factor?
Think on that a moment…this is YOUR business…your family eats from the profits it provides….
Who do you let go? It’s a pretty tough decision, I’ll bet.
Maybe I am putting it into perspective for you…maybe I am not. I believe it’s much easier to cast judgement on decisions that I don’t have to make or about money that I don’t have to spend.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness… the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” It’s my business. Whom I hire, fire, pay a certain wage, assign a certain duty, is my call not yours, not congress’s, not some “community activist’s.” I should have the liberty to dispose of my property as I see fit without needing the permission of people who are not on the hook for my debts, or have no interest in my dreams, nor responsibility to feed my family and put my kids through school. Clear enough?
>Do you think we should all have agency to do and act as we please under the guise of “freedom”? That sounds nice, but I admit, I just plain don’t trust other people to be responsible with -that- kind of freedom.
Have you ever read the first, ninth, and tenth amendments to the Constitution? Our founders trusted people to be free, the problem with people like you is that you don’t trust yourself to be free.
>I’m not advocating for employers to be forced to retain a worker simply because they’re over 50, but I think they should have a better reason for cutting them loose than the fact that someone younger will work for less money.
Fine. But we don’t need courts and legislatures to take our freedom away to enforce this opinion. The difference between you and these judges is only that they have the power to enforce their opinion on us, even when there is no constitutional authority for their opinion.
>There’s a happy medium somewhere in here. Freedom can still be freedom with some reasonable and clearly defined boundaries (based in ethics and common sense), can’t it?
Whose ethics? That’s why we have a Constitution and bill of rights, so that we don’t have to guess about these things. The problem is that the citizens are largely ignorant of the Constitution, and judges ignore it.
Get off your soapbox, bud. The laws were enacted to curb past abuses & you are free to exercise your right to hire, fire, etc. as you see fit subject to the laws we all have to follow. If it’s so bad, exercise your freedom to move somewhere else.
My goodness! The “Edge of Night’, “As the Stomach Turns”, “The Waltons”, and “Father Knows Best” scripts abound from these “civilized” commentaries. “Law-and-Order” will air it. The U.S.Constitution can be interpreted pretty much like the Bible and an insurance contract. Give the words and phrases the meaning you want them to mean. That’s why we have courts. The Legislators make the Laws, the Judges do the interpreting. Meanwhile back at the “workplace”. There may be a million reasons for the lawsuit. One person may be Jewish with an Einstein brain, the other a WASP or Catholic, or Buddist, or a goat lover. Who knows? But judging from the comments, if each commentator worked at the same place alongside the Plaintiff, and this took plac in present day Baghdad, I could visualize a few beheadings first and then pow-wowing later. Thank God for our system…imperfect as it may be!
How can they say this? Of course it is pertinent. Our legal sysem is imploding. Any testimony to find the truth shouild be allowed. So Ok legal scum – if not pertinent what about her privacy issues? Other employees easily saw this information.
I can’t imagin a company would fire someone who is productive. That’s contrary to good business practice. I would hate to think that it is harder for me to fire a forgetful old geezer than to fire a perfectly competent young/white/male person.
I hope the Supreme Court overturns the stupid ruling. The “information” has no bearing on the case and is total heresay.
to deny fairness and justice at every turn. Hello corporate profits, goodbye equal justice for the less fortunate. How sad :(
In a free country, employers can hire whom they want. In a dictatorship, the “subjects” are told with whom they must associate.
In a free country, workers can be let go for any reason, even due to the well-known, axiomatic ravages of age. In a dictatorship, employers are told by Big Brother that they may not fire slow geezers no matter what the drain on the bottom line.
This ruling is a vote for freedom, and you geniuses lament that fact.
Al,
Lets hope there are still have laws against age bias when you get to be one of the “slow Geezers”. Oops! Maybe you’re already there. Your comment has all the markings of senility/lost of true reality.
Hell, I’m older than the gal in this story. Please tell me where I’m wrong. Please. Do you want to live in a free country or not? If you restrict your neighbor’s freedom regarding his own property, by placing innumerable restrictions on his behavior, then he is not free. If you agree with that, you are an oppressor. No bones about it.
So call me names, mock etc., but I wish someone would debate the merits of my statement instead. Freedom is hard, and so is arguing against it, which is why you won’t.
Slaves were pensioned in the old South, did you know that? The plantations couldn’t just cut them lose when they were no longer at peak production, they had to continue to feed, clothe and shelter them until they died. Kinda like you’re arguing for.
If the testimony of the other employees is indeed just hearsay it should be easy to show that. I agree that we should not be placing limits on who can testify in a court case regardless of who is actually named in the suit. Reversing this ruling is the beginning on a course down a very slippery slope.
I totally agree with Al.
As tough as it is for all of us to realize/accept…one day we too, will get older and less productive. We have a shelf life…we should not expect to be paid for production we don’t accomplish. If that were the case we would have 60 year old athletes playing professional sports, breaking their hips and running in slow motion compared to their younger counterparts. The entertainment value may be diminished slightly if that were the case and some might lose interest…then they would all be out of a job, wouldn’t they?
How would you like to pay for a house that was built by 80 year old workers? IF the house was ever finished, would it stand with a good breeze blowing on it? Would it cost 3 times as much because it took 3 times as long? Would you want your children living in that house?
Is it possible you might want to rethink your stance on this issue? I’m not the economic think tank, per say, so I could be wrong.
Maybe…just maybe…people should be expected to take care of themselves when they get older, i.e. savings, 401K, more children, etc as their safety net rather than expect their employer to do it. In addition, weren’t they paid for services rendered when they rendered them? Why does the employer become liable, in your opinion, for un-equal services rendered in the future?
The U.S. was a capitalist/free enterprise system last I checked. You are welcome to disagree, that is your right, but you are also welcome to move to Great Britain or China to experience what they have to offer.
Just my two cents….
That’s more than two cents-worth, that’s priceless wisdom.
Don’t confuse dismissal due to “inability to perform job functions” and age. They’re separate issues. It’s the same reason why woman have had to deal with the glass ceiling – she might have a baby or put her children before her job. If the dismissals were based on age over 50 -it’s just as discriminatory as if it was based on age under 30, race, or any other personal factor unrelated to business need and performance.
“…any other personal factor unrelated to business need and performance.”
According to who, you? The state? A mob (democracy)? REPEAT: In a free society no one tells you with whom you must associate. See the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of free association. Helloooo…?
If the govt can tell you whom you must allow in your building or work with, regardless of the First Amendment, then what’s to stop it from breaking other tethers the Bill of Rights places on govt?
The whole “civil rights” thing is completely arbitrary, and therefore in the blink of an eye whole new “protected classes” can be elevated to privileged status while those now enjoying it can lose it by a vote, or a Supreme Court decision. Remember the news item a few years back about the deaf lifeguard suing because he couldn’t get hired? Where does it stop?
“Don’t confuse dismissal due to “inability to perform job functions” and age. They’re separate issues.”
I still agree with Al on the issue as a whole.
As to your response above…the burden of proof is for Sprint to show she was “unable to perform” or maybe the lady was of the 5 worst at her postion and Sprint was creating a more efficient workforce by firing the woman? We don’t know the answer or the reason at this point.
The woman is suing solely based on age discrimination…not lack of performance or inability to perform. We are discussing this issue as if the latter two didn’t exist.
For the same reason that “Reality Check” is assuming that the lady was fired because of her age, we should also be discussing the possibility that she could be a bad worker. Maybe her age plays a part in that too? We have no idea what she did there…maybe she was in sales and she has Alzheimer’s and can’t remember the product line? If that’s the case…should models sue modeling companies because they get fired for having too many wrinkles or too much junk in the trunk?
As Al, said…when does it stop?
How far is “freedom” supposed to reach?
Do you think we should all have agency to do and act as we please under the guise of “freedom”? That sounds nice, but I admit, I just plain don’t trust other people to be responsible with -that- kind of freedom.
Since it’s going to be a few more paychecks before I can buy my own island, I’m going to have to live in this country for a while.
There’s no reason to assume my productivity will significantly decrease the day after I turn 50. If anything, I will be BETTER at my job, as I will have gained more wisdom and experience.
I’m not advocating for employers to be forced to retain a worker simply because they’re over 50, but I think they should have a better reason for cutting them loose than the fact that someone younger will work for less money.
There’s a happy medium somewhere in here. Freedom can still be freedom with some reasonable and clearly defined boundaries (based in ethics and common sense), can’t it?
Once again, we are discussing this as if we already KNOW that the lady was doing her job well and was capable of doing it at her age…we, unfortunately, do not have that information.
Not to mention, even if she was doing her job well, the company may have needed to downsize.
For example, let’s say you own a landscape company with 10 employees. Recently you lost a contract with a client and you must downsize immediately because you can’t afford to do business paying 10 employees to 8 employees’ worth of work. Who do you let go? The oldest employee that may not work but a few more years because they will retire or would be unable to? The youngest employee because they haven’t been there as long as the others? The slowest workers..age not being a factor?
Think on that a moment…this is YOUR business…your family eats from the profits it provides….
Who do you let go? It’s a pretty tough decision, I’ll bet.
Maybe I am putting it into perspective for you…maybe I am not. I believe it’s much easier to cast judgement on decisions that I don’t have to make or about money that I don’t have to spend.
Am I up to three cents now?
>How far is “freedom” supposed to reach?
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness… the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” It’s my business. Whom I hire, fire, pay a certain wage, assign a certain duty, is my call not yours, not congress’s, not some “community activist’s.” I should have the liberty to dispose of my property as I see fit without needing the permission of people who are not on the hook for my debts, or have no interest in my dreams, nor responsibility to feed my family and put my kids through school. Clear enough?
>Do you think we should all have agency to do and act as we please under the guise of “freedom”? That sounds nice, but I admit, I just plain don’t trust other people to be responsible with -that- kind of freedom.
Have you ever read the first, ninth, and tenth amendments to the Constitution? Our founders trusted people to be free, the problem with people like you is that you don’t trust yourself to be free.
>I’m not advocating for employers to be forced to retain a worker simply because they’re over 50, but I think they should have a better reason for cutting them loose than the fact that someone younger will work for less money.
Fine. But we don’t need courts and legislatures to take our freedom away to enforce this opinion. The difference between you and these judges is only that they have the power to enforce their opinion on us, even when there is no constitutional authority for their opinion.
>There’s a happy medium somewhere in here. Freedom can still be freedom with some reasonable and clearly defined boundaries (based in ethics and common sense), can’t it?
Whose ethics? That’s why we have a Constitution and bill of rights, so that we don’t have to guess about these things. The problem is that the citizens are largely ignorant of the Constitution, and judges ignore it.
IF you are going to act like you know when something is “heresay” please at least know how to spell it!
Get off your soapbox, bud. The laws were enacted to curb past abuses & you are free to exercise your right to hire, fire, etc. as you see fit subject to the laws we all have to follow. If it’s so bad, exercise your freedom to move somewhere else.
The Constitution be damned! That’s the ol’ Democrat spirit we all know and love!
Wow sassy sally sue – if you don’t have any NICE to say then DON’T say it at all. In other words STFU!
My goodness! The “Edge of Night’, “As the Stomach Turns”, “The Waltons”, and “Father Knows Best” scripts abound from these “civilized” commentaries. “Law-and-Order” will air it. The U.S.Constitution can be interpreted pretty much like the Bible and an insurance contract. Give the words and phrases the meaning you want them to mean. That’s why we have courts. The Legislators make the Laws, the Judges do the interpreting. Meanwhile back at the “workplace”. There may be a million reasons for the lawsuit. One person may be Jewish with an Einstein brain, the other a WASP or Catholic, or Buddist, or a goat lover. Who knows? But judging from the comments, if each commentator worked at the same place alongside the Plaintiff, and this took plac in present day Baghdad, I could visualize a few beheadings first and then pow-wowing later. Thank God for our system…imperfect as it may be!