Human Rights Ordinance proposed by Parker (Houston, Mart: taxes, live, lawsuit)

[Truth713]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

You think that when people call 911 because a restaurant ran out of chicken nuggets that they won't complain that they didn't get their large diet coke because of discrimination?

Woman Calls 911 After McDonald's Runs Out Of Nuggets | WPBF Home - WPBF Home

You going to use the absurd as a example.. you really are making a strawman case

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Truth713

You going to use the absurd as a example.. you really are making a strawman case

It proves the point.

[War Beagle]

Originally Posted by Truth713

you open a buiness that caters to the public....if you wanted to be selective you should have opend a private club.. There are pleanty of car clubs that sell only to their members, plenty of bars that have a exculsive clinet .. You chocie to go into the PUBLIC REALM

Fair enough - I'll grant you that.

[Truth713]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

It proves the point.

no it does not .. you are taking extreme cases of stupidity or mental illness and saying aaahhh haa see !!!. Referencing cases that will never get past the point of being dismissed by a judge( by which the expense of court cost will be on the comlinat by the way)

Calling 911 for anything not a emerency can have you arrested or fined or both.. You seem to be pointing to the most extreme of human irranaional behavior has proof of arugment ignoring that most people have more sense than that

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Truth713

no it does not .. you are taking extreme cases of stupidity or mental illness and saying aaahhh haa see !!!. Referencing cases that will never get past the point of being dismissed by a judge( by which the expense of court cost will be on the comlinat by the way)

Calling 911 for anything not a emerency can have you arrested or fined or both.. You seem to be pointing to the most extreme of human irranaional behavior has proof of arugment ignoring that most people have more sense than that

Here you go, the EEOC had to pay $750,000 for essentially going rouge on a company for racial bias when it was clear there was not.

Court orders EEOC to pay $750K for

Here is an article discussing how even false claims hurts companies.

How Does an EEOC Complaint Hurt an Employer? | Chron.com

[PedroMartinez]

EEOC must pay $4.7 in legal fees.

EEOC hit with $4.7 million in attorneys

[Truth713]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Here you go, the EEOC had to pay $750,000 for essentially going rouge on a company for racial bias when it was clear there was not.

Court orders EEOC to pay $750K for

Here is an article discussing how even false claims hurts companies.

How Does an EEOC Complaint Hurt an Employer? | Chron.com

Yet still you are pointing to minority cases that account for what 5 % or even less... second as you have shown in your own article a company can seek retrubtion if a charge is found to not be true.. Like I said you take a small % as a example of the whole.. ignoring that no system is perfect and can be abused or misused...

any system will have cracks that people use to their advanage.. the only think you can do is place guards in place to correct them will exposed..Hence the company ablity to seek retribution for damages cause to them by fraudant suits...

By that logic we should do away with people abitiy to sue if they are injuried (becasue a hand full of people make be commiting fraud)

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Truth713

Yet still you are pointing to minority cases that account for what 5 % or even less... second as you have shown in your own article a company can seek retrubtion if a charge is found to not be true.. Like I said you take a small % as a example of the whole.. ignoring that no system is perfect and can be abused or misused...

any system will have cracks that people use to their advanage.. the only think you can do is place guards in place to correct them will exposed..Hence the company ablity to seek retribution for damages cause to them by fraudant suits...

By that logic we should do away with people abitiy to sue if they are injuried (becasue a hand full of people make be commiting fraud)

If you were one of the companies that the government went after when you were clearly innocent, you probably wouldn't be singing that tune.

Additionally, there is a big difference between protecting people from the government and protecting them from each other.

[Truth713]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

If you were one of the companies that the government went after when you were clearly innocent, you probably wouldn't be singing that tune.

Additionally, there is a big difference between protecting people from the government and protecting them from each other.

seeing as how they will recoup their losts and then some, I would say the system worked in their favor did,nt it..

The reason the government intervene in such things is that a regular person would stand no chance in hell of going up against a big company in a legit lawsuit would it ? In fact one tatcic of big company is to tie a case up in court to exhaust the fincace of the person filing the lawsuit..

[marksmu]

I am an attorney, (yes my avatar says real estate agent b/c I am both) but I deal with the EEOC complaints for my company. We average about 1 complaint per year, sometimes 2. They are ALL frivolous in our company. We run the fairest, most straight laced organization out there...you literally have to break at least 5 rules multiple times to be reprimanded and eventually fired.

Yet - there are always vengeful employees who happen to be members of protected classes that will file a complaint just to get back at you for reprimanding or firing them. Each complaints takes me about 5-7 hours to complete. EEOC wants you to mediate these complaints. I did that one time when I was a new attorney. It is pointless. The EEOC actually just wants you to give them money so they go away happy. They will call it a severance deal and nobody admits fault - but its just a legalized bribe which encourages more of the same.

I have fought all of them over the last 9 years I have been doing this and I have won them all. EEOC then issues a right to sue letter, and sometimes the disgruntled employee gets an attorney to send a demand letter. Responding to the demand letter requires another 3-5 hours of work. We have never been sued after that b/c I let the attorney know that I will come after my fees in my response.

Bottom line. It takes ALOT of time if you are an attorney to deal with this frivolous bull excrement, and if you are not an attorney, it takes more time and substantially more money to deal with.

Filing a compliant takes a complainer 10 minutes. It takes the employer, even when the employer has mountains of exculpatory evidence, including video, hours/days and lots of money to respond to something that is 99.9% of the time frivolous.

I do this for a living. I am well aware of the system and how it works and it is broken. We would be far better off without the EEOC and just letting the employee sue personally. A successful plaintiff's attorney gets his fees paid anyway...it would certainly cut down on the BS.