Employers should be protected by having the right to choose what type of individuals they want representing them. While gay people may be comfortable with their sexual orientation, they cannot force others to be, nor can they force others to accept their beliefs- plain and simple.
It’s a pretty small person that is “uncomfortable” around someone just because that someone is gay.
Would you support a gay employer’s right to purchase a company and summarily dismiss the older heterosexual employees because the new employer doesn’t want “those people and their beliefs” representing his company? He’s the owner, you know.
Where does it end? If upper management in my company were all liberal democrats, should they be able to dismiss me because they don’t want a white, conservative republican (and heterosexual, btw) representing them?
I think as a business owner you should have the right to hire anyone you want to regardless of their sexual orientation, political beliefs or religious beliefs. That goes for termination as well.
As an employee- if you don’t want your “business” known in the office, then keep your business out of the office.
The point that I was trying to make is that I don’t believe it’s fair for employers to be sued because they either elect not to hire someone because of their sexual orientation, political beliefs or religious beliefs, or they terminate someone for the same reasons. It’s nonsense in my opinion.
If you own a business you should have the right to hire people that you feel represent your company image or brand how you feel it should be represented. That’s like me suing Lane Bryant for not hiring me as a clothing model (I am a size 8) and their clothing is for plus size women. Their brand markets to plus size, so what would I bring to the table for them as a model? Am I going to go sue them? No way!
As for me personally, I could care less about sexual orientation.
FL Broker wrote: “The point that I was trying to make is that I don’t believe it’s fair for employers to be sued because they either elect not to hire someone because of their sexual orientation, political beliefs or religious beliefs, or they terminate someone for the same reasons.”
Wow. Are you okay with hiring/firing decisions based on gender as well? Should fire departments be able to hire only men because they tend to be stronger than women? If a woman office worker takes full maternity leave twice within three years, would you support her termination? The two examples I’ve given show a direct correlation to a person’s availability and ability to do their job. The examples you provided do not.
An example really isn’t required to state or support my opinion. This isn’t a debate.
We will have to agree to disagree.
July 26, 2018 at 10:02 pm
Fair Playing Field says:
Like or Dislike:
8
3
I can see why you wouldn’t want to debate your contention that you “don’t believe it’s fair for employers to be sued because they either elect not to hire someone because of their sexual orientation, political beliefs or religious beliefs, or they terminate someone for the same reasons”.
Interesting that you left out gender and race. I guess as long as you’re protected and otherwise in the majority, you feel anything goes, right?
July 27, 2018 at 8:56 am
FL Broker says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
Gender and race were not “left out”. They have nothing to do with my statement or my opinion regarding the subject, as gender and race are not a choice.
As previously mentioned by someone else, there is no evidence in the article that this individual was terminated due to his sexual orientation. I’m fairly confident that he wasn’t told that he was being terminated because of his sexual preference. He is choosing to jump on the discrimination bandwagon, and I find it ridiculous.
My comment was my opinion regarding what an employer should have the right to do if an employee doesn’t align with the core beliefs or company values (particularly if the employee is bringing it in the workplace or publicising it in the community). I’m sorry, but sexual orientation, religious beliefs and politics do not belong in the workplace. Don’t cry discrimination because you screwed up and made your personal beliefs known in the workplace.
I find it interesting that you feel that I am “protected and and otherwise in the majority”. It’s the mentality of yourself and others who would agree with your statement that are continuing to fuel the fire for frivolous discrimination lawsuits.
July 28, 2018 at 2:24 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Has anybody here sold third-party discrimination or EPL coverage? People are sued every day for this AND THEY WIN!
July 28, 2018 at 12:47 pm
Fair Playing Field says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
FL Broker wrote:
“As previously mentioned by someone else, there is no evidence in the article that this individual was terminated due to his sexual orientation.”
Are you not completely clear on what the article is about? It’s not the merits of Mr. Bostock’s individual case, but rather whether workplace discrimination laws apply to sexual orientation. The federal appeals court in Atlanta won’t hear the case.
“I find it interesting that you feel that I am ‘protected and and otherwise in the majority’. It’s the mentality of yourself and others who would agree with your statement that are continuing to fuel the fire for frivolous discrimination lawsuits.”
Are you a woman? If so, you’re protected by workplace discrimination law. Are you black? If so, you’re protected by workplace discrimination law. If not, and you’re white, you’re in the majority (and still protected by workplace discrimination law, btw).
My “mentality” is that a person’s ability and performance should impact employment decisions affecting them, and not whether they’re straight or gay. I’ve stated it already, but I believe in “liberty and justice for all”. In case you’re not aware, “justice” includes access to the courts.
That you think such a belief “fuels the fire for frivolous discrimination lawsuits” is beyond me. The solution to that issue lies in fixing the legal process, and not in denying access to the courts to all. Frankly, I think the “frivolous lawsuits” argument, though a very real concern, is bandied about too often as a red herring by the intolerant for their own purposes.
July 25, 2018 at 4:29 pm
martin says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
You are correct to a point. What evidence was there that they were fired for being gay or lesbian? I didn’t see any evidence of such. This could be dangerous for setting up many suits and fraud. I guess I could hop from company to company claiming I am gay and bring suit for wrongful termination? The evidence would have to be clear. Color is easy to see, sexual preference is not.
SHE is NOT a bigot against gays. I have several gay/lesbian friends. Most of them will tell you that they have enough common sense to keep their personal lives separate from their professional lives. A couple of them are successful business owners and have openly admitted that they are careful in who they hire in an effort to not disrupt the atmosphere or culture they strive to maintain in their workplace environment.
Do they know their “friend” feels their employer should be able to capriciously fire them from their jobs just because they’re gay/lesbian? Ask the business owners if they’re okay with a bank denying them credit because management doesn’t want the bank to get a reputation for being “gay-friendly”.
What about heterosexual divorced people? Or heterosexual divorced and remarried people (adulterers)? Or heterosexual singles who are sexual active (fornicators)? Or heterosexual couples living together with marriage (fornicators)? Or heterosexual people with out-of-wedlock children (fornicators and bastards). No employer should want to be represented by any of these morally questionable types of people (sarcasm*). I’m not comfortable with their immoral orientation and I don’t want to be forced to accept their immoral beliefs (sarcasm*). All of these people are questionable and employers should be protected from their kind right?
The same type of behavior that occurs between homosexuals happens between some heterosexuals, too. I bet the same people who speak out against homosexuality had no problem pulling the lever for immoral Donald Tramp.
Here is the unspoken thought from every business owner in California, where discrimination lawsuits are mostly fraudulent extortion attempts by greedy lawyers and crappy employees lying to get a buck: “I will never hire a black lesbian over the age of 50, because if I do and that person turns out to be a poor employee, I will never be able to get rid of that person.”
Now all you liberals can attack me. Fire away. But here is the truth: the out-of-control discrimination industry is hurting the exact people you say you want to help. And because you don’t run a business, you can prattle on with your phony concerns about “protecting” minority groups because, as usual, it costs you nothing to babble.
But if you REALLY cared about these people, you would change the system to punish the phonies who bring fraudulent claims. That would protect business owners who treat people properly, and encourage them to hire the people you want them to hire, because they would no longer fear paying tens of thousands of dollars for nothing.
And so the truth is spoken in private by honest business owners, nearly all of whom have been stung by phony claims. And you go on with your feel good nonsense that continues to hurt the same people you say you want to help. Congratulations on your feelings.
Craig Cornell wrote: Here is the unspoken thought from every business owner in California, where discrimination lawsuits are mostly fraudulent extortion attempts by greedy lawyers and crappy employees lying to get a buck: “I will never hire a black lesbian over the age of 50, because if I do and that person turns out to be a poor employee, I will never be able to get rid of that person.”
Really, Craig?
You really think you know every California business owner’s thoughts, and presume they all think alike?
How did you glean the knowledge that in CA discrimination lawsuits are mostly fraudulent extortion attempts?
Congratulations on achieving the racist/homophobic/misogynistic/ageist superfecta of “black, lesbian and over 50”, but don’t you think any CA business owners might fall into that category?
Congratulations. You spent several paragraphs before calling me the usual, boring names.
Do you live in California? I routinely ask insurance brokers what percentage of discrimination claims their clients suffer are fraudulent. The routine answer – remember, we are a very liberal State and many brokers are liberals – the routine answer is 80 to 90%. I have never had a client who did not suffer a phony claim. Businesses learned a long time ago to take very precaution, so the claims that come in now are almost all bogus.
So tell me again how much you care about the minorities you mention. Tell yourself what a good person you are, which is really the only point you care about. The actual humans? Whatever. Typical Liberal: name calling, non-thinking, gibberish.
Thank you for admitting the claims you made are actually anecdotal and limited in scope, and you truly don’t know what “every business owner in California thinks”.
I’m decidedly conservative, but I understand how that can be relative. Any conservative might appear liberal in comparison to a John Birch Society member.
A person’s ability to obtain and hold on to a job should not be be at risk due to their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, whatever. If you’re against that, just come out and say so. If you’re not against it, what were you expecting to accomplish with your kvetching in the post I responded to? Are you really against trying to protect equality and justice for all because there are those who might try to take advantage?
Please explain to me why premiums and deductibles for EPLI are extremely higher than 10 years ago?
Because there are fewer claims? Most employers take all of the precautions. Macho industries like car repair and construction long ago ditched the bikini calendars and trained their employees how to behave.
So what is it? Premiums are way up because employers are MORE reckless today than 10 years ago? They didn’t get the memo? They don’t care? Please educate me.
July 31, 2018 at 9:44 am
Fair Playing Field says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Yeah, yeah, Craig. Don’t respond to any questions asked of you and instead come back with more challenges and condescension.
Do you support sexual orientation being protected by workplace discrimination laws or are you against it? That’s what the article is about. Moaning and whining about increasing EPLI provides no solid argument for denying equal access to the courts to all.
That said, Google IJ’s article on “The New Normal in EPLI” from three years ago if you want their take. If you disagree with it, maybe you can post another one of those nifty 90’s production values videos on your website explaining your position. Be sure to include your “I will never hire a black lesbian over the age of 50, because if I do and that person turns out to be a poor employee, I will never be able to get rid of that person” remark. And for god’s sake, learn how to smile.
July 31, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
My guess: you are intentionally play dense. (I am trying to be generous).
I am against FRAUDULENT claims that damage the opportunities of good business people to confidently and safely hire anyone, including minorities.
Conflating phony discrimination claims with real ones is hurting minorities. How many times do I have to say the exact same thing for you to get it?
July 31, 2018 at 8:53 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I’ve seen premiums go down. Some carriers actually are covering it on their GL forms now.
Another deep thinker. The solution is simple. In fact, there are many:
1. Go back to having State regulators – not lawyers – decide claims of discrimination. That way the shake-down lawsuits go away. This is the main point of the lawsuits: defending typically costs about $100,000. So, the business decision on fraudulent discrimination claims is to settle for much less than that. And ALL the plaintiffs lawyers know the game. (The reason deductibles are now typically around $50,000. for EPLI policies in CA)
2. Loser pays: adopt the system in England that forces the loser of the lawsuit to pay the legal expenses of the other party. That would get rid of about 90% of the fraud.
Now call me a bigot and go back onto your non-thinking hole. The usual response. I know several liberal lawyers who completely agree with me.
From George the Deep Thinker: ” Craig uses a black lesbian example thereby suggesting that the only people filing fraudulent suits are minorities.”
If you think for a second, you will recognize that minorities are the ONLY ones who can bring lawsuits. But thanks for implying I am a bigot. And so now maybe you understand my pointed response.
And the real point: if you care about minorities, you would care that the wildfire of false discrimination claims hurts the very people you say you care about: honest minorities being discriminated against when they apply for a job for fear of a phony lawsuit. But you don’t really care. Not really.
Retaliation is NOT discrimination. Might want to buy a dictionary.
And in California, there ain’t no such thing as white people suing for “reverse discrimination”, because the liberals in CA have decided they aren’t a “protected class”. Only minorities are a protected class.
And your insistence on ignoring the real point – the wave of fraudulent lawsuits – tells me you don’t think you have to pay for them or you live in a State that has some common sense on legal issues.
And guess who businesses like to hire in CA? Young, straight, white males. (No risk at all.) Congratulations! Mission accomplished.
EPL premiums are going down. In fact, many carriers are now including EPL in their GL. I doubt that would be happening if “fraudulent” claims were running rampant. You’re in the early 90’s dude.
Yes, in California premiums are going down. Down from outrageous to extreme.
That’s like saying housing prices went down after 2008.
The premiums are going down because the much larger deductibles are taking care of many claims and also because employers are extra cautious about documentation. And also, extra cautious about hiring minorities.
But pretend you care about minorities. That’s what people do: pretend. If you really cared, you would investigate what I am saying, learn something new, and be part of the solution.
That just hasn’t been my experience regarding premiums and deductibles. And I would caution business owners about avoiding the hiring of minorities. They might be setting themselves up for the exact claims they are trying to avoid. You have heard of pre-employment discrimination, right?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Sexual orientation is not an issue of “beliefs”.
It’s a pretty small person that is “uncomfortable” around someone just because that someone is gay.
Would you support a gay employer’s right to purchase a company and summarily dismiss the older heterosexual employees because the new employer doesn’t want “those people and their beliefs” representing his company? He’s the owner, you know.
Where does it end? If upper management in my company were all liberal democrats, should they be able to dismiss me because they don’t want a white, conservative republican (and heterosexual, btw) representing them?
Nope. Not so “plain and simple”.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
If any employer were to dismiss any employee for a non-performance related reason, they wouldn’t be in business very long.
And that’s because true Americans believe in the concept of “Liberty and Justice for ALL”.
I think as a business owner you should have the right to hire anyone you want to regardless of their sexual orientation, political beliefs or religious beliefs. That goes for termination as well.
As an employee- if you don’t want your “business” known in the office, then keep your business out of the office.
The point that I was trying to make is that I don’t believe it’s fair for employers to be sued because they either elect not to hire someone because of their sexual orientation, political beliefs or religious beliefs, or they terminate someone for the same reasons. It’s nonsense in my opinion.
If you own a business you should have the right to hire people that you feel represent your company image or brand how you feel it should be represented. That’s like me suing Lane Bryant for not hiring me as a clothing model (I am a size 8) and their clothing is for plus size women. Their brand markets to plus size, so what would I bring to the table for them as a model? Am I going to go sue them? No way!
As for me personally, I could care less about sexual orientation.
FL Broker wrote: “The point that I was trying to make is that I don’t believe it’s fair for employers to be sued because they either elect not to hire someone because of their sexual orientation, political beliefs or religious beliefs, or they terminate someone for the same reasons.”
Wow. Are you okay with hiring/firing decisions based on gender as well? Should fire departments be able to hire only men because they tend to be stronger than women? If a woman office worker takes full maternity leave twice within three years, would you support her termination? The two examples I’ve given show a direct correlation to a person’s availability and ability to do their job. The examples you provided do not.
An example really isn’t required to state or support my opinion. This isn’t a debate.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I can see why you wouldn’t want to debate your contention that you “don’t believe it’s fair for employers to be sued because they either elect not to hire someone because of their sexual orientation, political beliefs or religious beliefs, or they terminate someone for the same reasons”.
Interesting that you left out gender and race. I guess as long as you’re protected and otherwise in the majority, you feel anything goes, right?
Gender and race were not “left out”. They have nothing to do with my statement or my opinion regarding the subject, as gender and race are not a choice.
As previously mentioned by someone else, there is no evidence in the article that this individual was terminated due to his sexual orientation. I’m fairly confident that he wasn’t told that he was being terminated because of his sexual preference. He is choosing to jump on the discrimination bandwagon, and I find it ridiculous.
My comment was my opinion regarding what an employer should have the right to do if an employee doesn’t align with the core beliefs or company values (particularly if the employee is bringing it in the workplace or publicising it in the community). I’m sorry, but sexual orientation, religious beliefs and politics do not belong in the workplace. Don’t cry discrimination because you screwed up and made your personal beliefs known in the workplace.
I find it interesting that you feel that I am “protected and and otherwise in the majority”. It’s the mentality of yourself and others who would agree with your statement that are continuing to fuel the fire for frivolous discrimination lawsuits.
Has anybody here sold third-party discrimination or EPL coverage? People are sued every day for this AND THEY WIN!
FL Broker wrote:
“As previously mentioned by someone else, there is no evidence in the article that this individual was terminated due to his sexual orientation.”
Are you not completely clear on what the article is about? It’s not the merits of Mr. Bostock’s individual case, but rather whether workplace discrimination laws apply to sexual orientation. The federal appeals court in Atlanta won’t hear the case.
“I find it interesting that you feel that I am ‘protected and and otherwise in the majority’. It’s the mentality of yourself and others who would agree with your statement that are continuing to fuel the fire for frivolous discrimination lawsuits.”
Are you a woman? If so, you’re protected by workplace discrimination law. Are you black? If so, you’re protected by workplace discrimination law. If not, and you’re white, you’re in the majority (and still protected by workplace discrimination law, btw).
My “mentality” is that a person’s ability and performance should impact employment decisions affecting them, and not whether they’re straight or gay. I’ve stated it already, but I believe in “liberty and justice for all”. In case you’re not aware, “justice” includes access to the courts.
That you think such a belief “fuels the fire for frivolous discrimination lawsuits” is beyond me. The solution to that issue lies in fixing the legal process, and not in denying access to the courts to all. Frankly, I think the “frivolous lawsuits” argument, though a very real concern, is bandied about too often as a red herring by the intolerant for their own purposes.
You are correct to a point. What evidence was there that they were fired for being gay or lesbian? I didn’t see any evidence of such. This could be dangerous for setting up many suits and fraud. I guess I could hop from company to company claiming I am gay and bring suit for wrongful termination? The evidence would have to be clear. Color is easy to see, sexual preference is not.
Don’t forget about the cooties. That’s what bugs me.
“FL Broker”..should have guessed you were from FL.
He may be from FL, but I bet he doesn’t spend much time in Key West.
SHE is from Florida and SHE lived in Key West growing up. I graduated high school there.
Bottom line- I think the discrimination suits are getting way out of hand.
SHE shouldn’t be so bigoted against gays.
SHE is NOT a bigot against gays. I have several gay/lesbian friends. Most of them will tell you that they have enough common sense to keep their personal lives separate from their professional lives. A couple of them are successful business owners and have openly admitted that they are careful in who they hire in an effort to not disrupt the atmosphere or culture they strive to maintain in their workplace environment.
They shouldn’t have to be in the closet.
FL Broker wrote:
“I have several gay/lesbian friends.”
Do they know their “friend” feels their employer should be able to capriciously fire them from their jobs just because they’re gay/lesbian? Ask the business owners if they’re okay with a bank denying them credit because management doesn’t want the bank to get a reputation for being “gay-friendly”.
Ridiculous decision.
What about heterosexual divorced people? Or heterosexual divorced and remarried people (adulterers)? Or heterosexual singles who are sexual active (fornicators)? Or heterosexual couples living together with marriage (fornicators)? Or heterosexual people with out-of-wedlock children (fornicators and bastards). No employer should want to be represented by any of these morally questionable types of people (sarcasm*). I’m not comfortable with their immoral orientation and I don’t want to be forced to accept their immoral beliefs (sarcasm*). All of these people are questionable and employers should be protected from their kind right?
They shouldn’t have to be in the closet.
The same type of behavior that occurs between homosexuals happens between some heterosexuals, too. I bet the same people who speak out against homosexuality had no problem pulling the lever for immoral Donald Tramp.
Oh Captain, my Captain,
Can we leave politics out of this?
Well, lying is immoral and every politician lies. When you think about it, I guess we’ve all voted for immoral people.
it’s not a protected class. You must discuss the protected classes with every D&O policy discussion. Maybe it should be, but it’s not
Oh Captain, my Captain. I’ve missed you.
Where have you been, Libby? Missed you, too!
Retired. Now I’m just working part-time from home.
Actually it is in several jurisdictions.
Here is the unspoken thought from every business owner in California, where discrimination lawsuits are mostly fraudulent extortion attempts by greedy lawyers and crappy employees lying to get a buck: “I will never hire a black lesbian over the age of 50, because if I do and that person turns out to be a poor employee, I will never be able to get rid of that person.”
Now all you liberals can attack me. Fire away. But here is the truth: the out-of-control discrimination industry is hurting the exact people you say you want to help. And because you don’t run a business, you can prattle on with your phony concerns about “protecting” minority groups because, as usual, it costs you nothing to babble.
But if you REALLY cared about these people, you would change the system to punish the phonies who bring fraudulent claims. That would protect business owners who treat people properly, and encourage them to hire the people you want them to hire, because they would no longer fear paying tens of thousands of dollars for nothing.
And so the truth is spoken in private by honest business owners, nearly all of whom have been stung by phony claims. And you go on with your feel good nonsense that continues to hurt the same people you say you want to help. Congratulations on your feelings.
Craig Cornell wrote: Here is the unspoken thought from every business owner in California, where discrimination lawsuits are mostly fraudulent extortion attempts by greedy lawyers and crappy employees lying to get a buck: “I will never hire a black lesbian over the age of 50, because if I do and that person turns out to be a poor employee, I will never be able to get rid of that person.”
Really, Craig?
You really think you know every California business owner’s thoughts, and presume they all think alike?
How did you glean the knowledge that in CA discrimination lawsuits are mostly fraudulent extortion attempts?
Congratulations on achieving the racist/homophobic/misogynistic/ageist superfecta of “black, lesbian and over 50”, but don’t you think any CA business owners might fall into that category?
Congratulations. You spent several paragraphs before calling me the usual, boring names.
Do you live in California? I routinely ask insurance brokers what percentage of discrimination claims their clients suffer are fraudulent. The routine answer – remember, we are a very liberal State and many brokers are liberals – the routine answer is 80 to 90%. I have never had a client who did not suffer a phony claim. Businesses learned a long time ago to take very precaution, so the claims that come in now are almost all bogus.
So tell me again how much you care about the minorities you mention. Tell yourself what a good person you are, which is really the only point you care about. The actual humans? Whatever. Typical Liberal: name calling, non-thinking, gibberish.
Where to begin?
I do live in California.
Thank you for admitting the claims you made are actually anecdotal and limited in scope, and you truly don’t know what “every business owner in California thinks”.
I’m decidedly conservative, but I understand how that can be relative. Any conservative might appear liberal in comparison to a John Birch Society member.
A person’s ability to obtain and hold on to a job should not be be at risk due to their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, whatever. If you’re against that, just come out and say so. If you’re not against it, what were you expecting to accomplish with your kvetching in the post I responded to? Are you really against trying to protect equality and justice for all because there are those who might try to take advantage?
Please explain to me why premiums and deductibles for EPLI are extremely higher than 10 years ago?
Because there are fewer claims? Most employers take all of the precautions. Macho industries like car repair and construction long ago ditched the bikini calendars and trained their employees how to behave.
So what is it? Premiums are way up because employers are MORE reckless today than 10 years ago? They didn’t get the memo? They don’t care? Please educate me.
Yeah, yeah, Craig. Don’t respond to any questions asked of you and instead come back with more challenges and condescension.
Do you support sexual orientation being protected by workplace discrimination laws or are you against it? That’s what the article is about. Moaning and whining about increasing EPLI provides no solid argument for denying equal access to the courts to all.
That said, Google IJ’s article on “The New Normal in EPLI” from three years ago if you want their take. If you disagree with it, maybe you can post another one of those nifty 90’s production values videos on your website explaining your position. Be sure to include your “I will never hire a black lesbian over the age of 50, because if I do and that person turns out to be a poor employee, I will never be able to get rid of that person” remark. And for god’s sake, learn how to smile.
My guess: you are intentionally play dense. (I am trying to be generous).
I am against FRAUDULENT claims that damage the opportunities of good business people to confidently and safely hire anyone, including minorities.
Conflating phony discrimination claims with real ones is hurting minorities. How many times do I have to say the exact same thing for you to get it?
I’ve seen premiums go down. Some carriers actually are covering it on their GL forms now.
Craig Cornell wrote:
“My guess: you are intentionally play dense.”
LOL. Way to craft an insult, wordsmith.
Another deep thinker. The solution is simple. In fact, there are many:
1. Go back to having State regulators – not lawyers – decide claims of discrimination. That way the shake-down lawsuits go away. This is the main point of the lawsuits: defending typically costs about $100,000. So, the business decision on fraudulent discrimination claims is to settle for much less than that. And ALL the plaintiffs lawyers know the game. (The reason deductibles are now typically around $50,000. for EPLI policies in CA)
2. Loser pays: adopt the system in England that forces the loser of the lawsuit to pay the legal expenses of the other party. That would get rid of about 90% of the fraud.
Now call me a bigot and go back onto your non-thinking hole. The usual response. I know several liberal lawyers who completely agree with me.
From George the Deep Thinker: ” Craig uses a black lesbian example thereby suggesting that the only people filing fraudulent suits are minorities.”
If you think for a second, you will recognize that minorities are the ONLY ones who can bring lawsuits. But thanks for implying I am a bigot. And so now maybe you understand my pointed response.
And the real point: if you care about minorities, you would care that the wildfire of false discrimination claims hurts the very people you say you care about: honest minorities being discriminated against when they apply for a job for fear of a phony lawsuit. But you don’t really care. Not really.
Retaliation is NOT discrimination. Might want to buy a dictionary.
And in California, there ain’t no such thing as white people suing for “reverse discrimination”, because the liberals in CA have decided they aren’t a “protected class”. Only minorities are a protected class.
And your insistence on ignoring the real point – the wave of fraudulent lawsuits – tells me you don’t think you have to pay for them or you live in a State that has some common sense on legal issues.
And guess who businesses like to hire in CA? Young, straight, white males. (No risk at all.) Congratulations! Mission accomplished.
Tramp must be a minority. Guy is king of lawsuits!
Relevance to Discussion: zero. Wit: zero. Insight: zero. Captain Black Hole, as usual.
APRIL 19, 2018 AT 2:53 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Thanks, third grader!
EPL premiums are going down. In fact, many carriers are now including EPL in their GL. I doubt that would be happening if “fraudulent” claims were running rampant. You’re in the early 90’s dude.
EPL, D&O, EBL – pretty much throw ins anymore. Why not take the layups if the lane is open, right?
Yes, in California premiums are going down. Down from outrageous to extreme.
That’s like saying housing prices went down after 2008.
The premiums are going down because the much larger deductibles are taking care of many claims and also because employers are extra cautious about documentation. And also, extra cautious about hiring minorities.
But pretend you care about minorities. That’s what people do: pretend. If you really cared, you would investigate what I am saying, learn something new, and be part of the solution.
That just hasn’t been my experience regarding premiums and deductibles. And I would caution business owners about avoiding the hiring of minorities. They might be setting themselves up for the exact claims they are trying to avoid. You have heard of pre-employment discrimination, right?