Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, this is just a simple stat. What are the circumstances surrounding the arrests? Were blacks more liekly to smoke weed out in public than whites? Have possession of weed in commission of another crime? The stat does not mention any circumstances surrounding the arrests.
Anyway, it is not businesses problem the gov has issues with who they arrest and convict. If the gov has a problem with it, perhaps they should solve it since they are the cause of it.
Again, I think those are legit questions to ask, but again it doesn't really address the problem of black Americans being overly sampled, by the police which distorts arrests, which then distorts crime stats, and then those same distorted crime stats are used by employers to discriminate against black Americans, and used by the police to justify increased scrutiny of black Americans. It is actually a vicious cycle.
I already said what the EEOC is doing is attempting to address the problem sort of on the backend, but I applaud their efforts.
Seattle just passed a law that criminal records don't have any bearing on whether you get hired or not. The floodgates have been opened. John Edwards is probably on a one way flight to Seattle right now.
I think that is a legit point to make, but I also think the EEOC has a great point as well which is government actions are hurting black Americans and the EEOC believes that this leads to racial discrimination against black Americans when seeking employment.
The issue is that the EEOC is aggregating across the country and declaring it disparate impact any time a company does not hire, or fires a black person on a criminal record, no matter if other races were also treated the same. So if a company fired 50 white people and one black person for having a criminal record, the EEOC will only consider the black person getting fired as being discrimination, even if the company has 1000 employees, and 100% black with the 50 terminated white employees being the only white employees there.
Again, I think those are legit questions to ask, but again it doesn't really address the problem of black Americans being overly sampled, by the police which distorts arrests, which then distorts crime stats, and then those same distorted crime stats are used by employers to discriminate against black Americans, and used by the police to justify increased scrutiny of black Americans. It is actually a vicious cycle.
I already said what the EEOC is doing is attempting to address the problem sort of on the backend, but I applaud their efforts.
For one, stay out of trouble, it is real simple, millions of people, including blacks, have not been convicted of anything.
The EEOC is not addressing the problem, they just want to make blacks with a criminal record a special class, but not extend this out to any other race. The EEOC basically wants to state that a person's (blacks) actions should not have any future impact. The EEOC is really stretching/spinning Title VII in pursuit of an agenda. However, this is actually counter to Title VII, and a big "duh" comes over an EEOC lawyer's face when asked.
You don't have any experience with the EEOC do you? They are no different than the IRS, NSA, etc., they can be out of control based upon which career government worker gets your case.
I have quite a bit of experience with EEOC, I used to work for them.
You apparently don't know much about them.
They're not going to court unless they have ironclad proof.
That's why most cases don't get anywhere near court.
I have quite a bit of experience with EEOC, I used to work for them.
You apparently don't know much about them.
They're not going to court unless they have ironclad proof.
That's why most cases don't get anywhere near court.
Ironclad proof? Try ironclad allegation. EEOC has shelled out hundreds of thousands if not millions over the past 2 years for dumb cases.
That is unless you stick by "proof" as being truth because they said so and not based upon adjudication.
EEOC is a sloppy, lazy, and understaffed organization. That doesn't mean they don't do good things. But it does mean sometimes stereotypes are true.
Ironclad proof? Try ironclad allegation. EEOC has shelled out hundreds of thousands if not millions over the past 2 years for dumb cases.
That is unless you stick by "proof" as being truth because they said so and not based upon adjudication.
EEOC is a sloppy, lazy, and understaffed organization. That doesn't mean they don't do good things. But it does mean sometimes stereotypes are true.
The office I worked in was very well run, yet chronically understaffed.
If they're talking about court, there is a good chance that they have their ducks in a row.
I was a paralegal in my office.
Nothing went as far as court if they didn't have an excellent chance of winning.
I have quite a bit of experience with EEOC, I used to work for them.
You apparently don't know much about them.
They're not going to court unless they have ironclad proof.
That's why most cases don't get anywhere near court.
Are you saying that the EEOC has never lost a case?
Proof is subjective many times, the EEOC likes to test the waters.
Most cases hardly get a glance (no issues of discrimination/jurisdiction), out of 100k filings, under 1%(?) resulted in findings.
The office I worked in was very well run, yet chronically understaffed.
If they're talking about court, there is a good chance that they have their ducks in a row.
I was a paralegal in my office.
Nothing went as far as court if they didn't have an excellent chance of winning.
That's good. I'm aware of a case where someone in writing quoted a third party and the investigator used that quote to determine the claim. But she never verified the quote. All she had to do was pick up the phone. I saw the entire file. No one EVER made contact with anyone on the case. One side I guess wrote better than the others and they went with the one that had the prettier font.
How can you use hearsay when making a decision?
Of course that's not an example of going to court but that only means the crap is at the lower tiers.
Proof is subjective many times, the EEOC likes to test the waters.
You got that right and that's true for this administration as a whole. Go look up how many times Obama was in front of the court in the last year and then count the number of times he won. It really concerns me with the top lawyer does that in the top court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
