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.
Most of the people on these boards have no consciousness beyond their immediate self, like paramecium with microscopic cilia whose movement is dictated by running into the boundaries of their self-absorption.
Most of the people on these boards have no consciousness beyond their immediate self, like paramecium with microscopic cilia whose movement is dictated by running into the boundaries of their self-absorption.
That and the fact, he had no information in his profile...
but how about that!
It is not uncommon for employers to set standards of dress for the workplace which are reflective of the company’s culture. However, many employers tend to differentiate between appropriate attire for men and that for women. Employers beware: making such distinctions on the basis of sex will in many instances be seen to be in breach of anti-discrimination legislation.
Men can Wear Earrings
In a recent case in New South Wales, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal determined that a petrol station owner unlawfully discriminated against a male console operator by dismissing that employee for refusing to remove his earring (Bree v Lupevo Pty Ltd [2003] NSWADT 47, 11 March 2003).
The Facts
On a number of occasions the employer requested that the employee remove his earring. At the same time, the employer had permitted female employees to wear earrings. The employee was dismissed for a variety of performance-related reasons including the fact that he refused to comply with the employer’s personal presentation guidelines.
The Decision
The Tribunal commented that the small stud style earring which the employee wore in his left ear was a “form of adornment which, the Tribunal has observed and about which it takes notice, is not uncommon to be worn by male persons in the modern day community.” The Tribunal noted that the earring “would not constitute a safety hazard and would not physically interfere with the proper discharge of the duties of the Applicant in his role as a console operator.”
The Tribunal determined that the dismissal of the employee for failing to remove his earring constituted unlawful discrimination. The Tribunal found that the discriminatory conduct of the employer did not emanate from the prohibition of wearing earrings but rather, from the fact that the prohibition was not applied to men in the same way it was applied to women.
The employee was awarded damages of $16,956, comprising $5000 compensation for hurt and humiliation and $11,956 for loss of earnings. In addition, the employee was awarded costs.
That and the fact, he had no information in his profile...
but how about that!
It is not uncommon for employers to set standards of dress for the workplace which are reflective of the company’s culture. However, many employers tend to differentiate between appropriate attire for men and that for women. Employers beware: making such distinctions on the basis of sex will in many instances be seen to be in breach of anti-discrimination legislation.
Men can Wear Earrings
In a recent case in New South Wales, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal determined that a petrol station owner unlawfully discriminated against a male console operator by dismissing that employee for refusing to remove his earring (Bree v Lupevo Pty Ltd [2003] NSWADT 47, 11 March 2003).
The Facts
On a number of occasions the employer requested that the employee remove his earring. At the same time, the employer had permitted female employees to wear earrings. The employee was dismissed for a variety of performance-related reasons including the fact that he refused to comply with the employer’s personal presentation guidelines.
The Decision
The Tribunal commented that the small stud style earring which the employee wore in his left ear was a “form of adornment which, the Tribunal has observed and about which it takes notice, is not uncommon to be worn by male persons in the modern day community.” The Tribunal noted that the earring “would not constitute a safety hazard and would not physically interfere with the proper discharge of the duties of the Applicant in his role as a console operator.”
The Tribunal determined that the dismissal of the employee for failing to remove his earring constituted unlawful discrimination. The Tribunal found that the discriminatory conduct of the employer did not emanate from the prohibition of wearing earrings but rather, from the fact that the prohibition was not applied to men in the same way it was applied to women.
The employee was awarded damages of $16,956, comprising $5000 compensation for hurt and humiliation and $11,956 for loss of earnings. In addition, the employee was awarded costs.
Thank you! To everybody else who said I do not have a case
Every one(including me) that said you dont have a case assumed you lived in the USA. If you would have posted that you in were Australia in your 1st post, you would have gotten different responses.
Every one(including me) that said you dont have a case assumed you lived in the USA. If you would have posted that you in were Australia in your 1st post, you would have gotten different responses.
It is their fault for not asking in the first place
Every one(including me) that said you dont have a case assumed you lived in the USA. If you would have posted that you in were Australia in your 1st post, you would have gotten different responses.
Instead of this thread becoming so long and drawn out, the OP would no doubt have been quickly advised that the laws in his country are probably quite different from those in the US and since this is a US forum he might have figured out the appropriateness of mentioning it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVDFreaker
It is their fault for not asking in the first place
Yes, child. An appropriate response considering your immaturity.
It is their fault for not asking in the first place
I do not believe you are in Australia, you came up with that when you found out you don't have any case against your employer, if THAT story is even true.
Your posting history relates to stuff in the United States.
I do not believe you are in Australia, you came up with that when you found out you don't have any case against your employer, if THAT story is even true.
Your posting history relates to stuff in the United States.
He seems to know a a lot about the NFL, NBA and College Football. How is some on in Australia a fan of OU? Also did not realize they had Bank of America in Australia.
He seems to know a a lot about the NFL, NBA and College Football. How is some on in Australia a fan of OU? Also did not realize they had Bank of America in Australia.
And he lived in Oklahoma not too long ago. Not that it's indicative of his geographical location but he also said not too long ago that he hadn't had sex in 8 years. Along with everything which contradicts his assertion of living in Australia, there's a dreadful odor emanating from underneath the bridge.
And he lived in Oklahoma not too long ago. Not that it's indicative of his geographical location but he also said not too long ago that he hadn't had sex in 8 years. Along with everything which contradicts his assertion of living in Australia, there's a dreadful odor emanating from underneath the bridge.
Hasn't had sex in eight years but still refers to himself as a boy?
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.
