Pretty inappropriate comments. I find it more interesting that the majority voting against the suits are men — guess what gender does most of the game playing, discrimination, and retaliation.
Becca, your comment is itself sexist and discriminatory. The insurance industry has no shortage of women in executive and managerial positions, and this behavior can and does routinely occur regardless of gender.
Biker: I humbly disagree with you on the latter part of your post. There is indeed a shortage of women in these roles considering the number of women in the industry. We have been, and still are, a minority in executive positions.
I also fail to see what the correlation is between the insurance industry and the two cases cited – a catering worker and a university applicant.
And finally, while this behavior can and does happen regardless of gender, the preponderence of sexual discrimination is male against female.
Neither of these cases involved sexual harassment. In fact, both claimed racial bias. The justices didn’t say there is no such thing as harassment, they just refined the point at which it becomes a legal liability.
about time the courts began to strike down some of these whining crybabies. did anyone consider that perhaps these folks were discplined because of the type of employee they were: complainers. with their “blame everyone else” attitudes it is little wonder they aren’t valued employees.
I don’t care how devalued this person was, she didn’t deserve to be slapped by a co-worker. That is not “disciplining.” Hopefully, action was taken against the perpetrator and he was terminated.
Where does it say the co-worker was a male? This article does not provide the gender of the co-worker. Let’s not assume. Women can hit/slap as well as any man.
The gripe that the majority of the Justices voting against the woman who complained are male Justices misses the key fact that there are only 3 women on the 9 member SCOTUS.
The key determining factor is employment control over the worker subjected to discrimination or harassment. As there was none, the harassed worker could just walk away from it. But the harassed worker might claim harassment to the police to seek remedy.
Had a real woman (Sandra Day O’Connor) been on the bench she likely would have sided with the majority opinion. Instead we have three bleeding hearts (Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan) who pine for every sob story that comes down the pike.
Who hasn’t had bosses they’ve disliked, coworkers they couldn’t stand and have been treated less than deserved on occassion. Winners use challenges such as that as motivation towards finding better opportunities. The flotsam and jetsam of society see these as excuses to bellyache from the sidelines. Grow up!
I guess we are getting off track here. The subject of the article is retaliation for alleging harrassment. I don’t think there was mention of sexual discrimination.
Just makes it harder for the Employee to get “justice.” Employers have always had a much stronger lobby, more money and much more legal power. Take Work Comp Nation Wide, more given each day to employers and less to workers. Arm severed with an industral accident, no worries you still have another one!
Where is Richard Pryor’s Klan Watch legal team when you need them?
And, that is a joke, people, so lighten up! I realize Justice Thomas isn’t part of The KKK. There’s been only one African American Klansman, Clayton Bigsby:
http://cms.m1is.com/video.aspx?mid=d20a9950-fa1a-4abc-884c-85efcd4182f2
Knock Knock… Who’s there?? Clayton Bigsby… Clayton Bigsby who?? {long pause} Congratulations, you’re on the IJ Forums.
ExiteBiker,
That may be the best post on IJ…EVER!
Pretty inappropriate comments. I find it more interesting that the majority voting against the suits are men — guess what gender does most of the game playing, discrimination, and retaliation.
A sad world we live in today!
Great observation, Becca.
Becca, your comment is itself sexist and discriminatory. The insurance industry has no shortage of women in executive and managerial positions, and this behavior can and does routinely occur regardless of gender.
Biker: I humbly disagree with you on the latter part of your post. There is indeed a shortage of women in these roles considering the number of women in the industry. We have been, and still are, a minority in executive positions.
I also fail to see what the correlation is between the insurance industry and the two cases cited – a catering worker and a university applicant.
And finally, while this behavior can and does happen regardless of gender, the preponderence of sexual discrimination is male against female.
Neither of these cases involved sexual harassment. In fact, both claimed racial bias. The justices didn’t say there is no such thing as harassment, they just refined the point at which it becomes a legal liability.
about time the courts began to strike down some of these whining crybabies. did anyone consider that perhaps these folks were discplined because of the type of employee they were: complainers. with their “blame everyone else” attitudes it is little wonder they aren’t valued employees.
I don’t care how devalued this person was, she didn’t deserve to be slapped by a co-worker. That is not “disciplining.” Hopefully, action was taken against the perpetrator and he was terminated.
Where does it say the co-worker was a male? This article does not provide the gender of the co-worker. Let’s not assume. Women can hit/slap as well as any man.
Sorry. Hopefully he/she was terminated.
who said a colleague slapped her. No gender mentioned. Hmmm…
According to this, the harrasser (sp?) was a woman. It doesn’t look like she was terminated.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/11-556_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf
I had only read the summary before, and the summary doesn’t match the accusations. Wow. I am confused.
The gripe that the majority of the Justices voting against the woman who complained are male Justices misses the key fact that there are only 3 women on the 9 member SCOTUS.
The key determining factor is employment control over the worker subjected to discrimination or harassment. As there was none, the harassed worker could just walk away from it. But the harassed worker might claim harassment to the police to seek remedy.
Or, could have complained to her actual supervisor. If the supervisor then did nothing, there is a case.
According to the a SC brief, she complain to her supervisor. I don’t know on what SCOTUS based their decision.
Had a real woman (Sandra Day O’Connor) been on the bench she likely would have sided with the majority opinion. Instead we have three bleeding hearts (Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan) who pine for every sob story that comes down the pike.
Who hasn’t had bosses they’ve disliked, coworkers they couldn’t stand and have been treated less than deserved on occassion. Winners use challenges such as that as motivation towards finding better opportunities. The flotsam and jetsam of society see these as excuses to bellyache from the sidelines. Grow up!
I guess we are getting off track here. The subject of the article is retaliation for alleging harrassment. I don’t think there was mention of sexual discrimination.
Just makes it harder for the Employee to get “justice.” Employers have always had a much stronger lobby, more money and much more legal power. Take Work Comp Nation Wide, more given each day to employers and less to workers. Arm severed with an industral accident, no worries you still have another one!
All of the usual complaints about a “liberal” supreme court didn’t show up here. Hmmmmmm.