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.
You can also check the Fair Credit and Reporting Act.
Confirms what I've said.
Quote:
However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.
Read more: Family Security Matters Family Security Matters
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
It is legal. However, if you are using it in such a way as to discriminate against someone who is in a protected class, then that would be illegal. Which is what I said. If you had an apartment complex that required tenants to have a bachelor's degree or higher, that would be legal. If the local demographic is such that 80% of prospective white tenants have a bachelor's degree or higher and 5% of prospective black tenants have a bachelor's degree, then you have a strong argument that the real purpose of the policy is to discriminate on the basis of race which is of course illegal.
Four Florida cops lost their jobs Friday after racist texts and an "inexcusable" video surfaced, their chief said.
A five-month internal investigation led to three of them being fired, and one of them resigning, according to NBC Miami. The officers reportedly sent a trailer-style video amongst themselves containing a Ku Klux Klan hood, attacks against minorities, derogatory images of President Obama and racist comments about Hispanics and homosexuals.
They didn't violate the law at all. They just didn't adhere to their employer's code of conduct, and the employer fired them.
Just because something, in the view of an employer, is a fireable offense doesn't mean its illegal.
I didn't say that. I understand that. My going back and forth has to do with one comment the other poster made, which is that it is perfectly legal to discriminate. End. That's what he said. I had to counter that. That's what my links pertain to and that's what I'm trying to clear up.
Furthermore, I must assume they receive Federal dollars. Any agency that receives federal dollars can not have discriminatory practices, even though they were violating their agency's code of conduct as well.
I didn't say that. I understand that. My going back and forth has to do with one comment the other poster made, which is that it is perfectly legal to discriminate. End. That's what he said. I had to counter that. That's what my links pertain to and that's what I'm trying to clear up.
It has to do with Hate Speech...which is unacceptable especially given the POWER AND CONTROL these folks have...Indicating such partisan HATE towards their President use to constitute "Treason" in the old days....but process has been made to equate it with HATE talk....IF anyone would actually equate such talk with outcomes of police shootings/killing of "SUPPOSED PERPS" ..then have the power to NOT REPORT any such things..Stats abundant on the LACK OF transparency for Police Shootings....So I don't give a pass on out of control LE Officer's as just talking...because for all their talking....followed by excessive force utilized consistently across America just makes NO SENSE!! To deny Excessive Force being perp'd under the guise of necessary needs to be addressed..like yesterday..not next decade!!
Just as a sidenote: I do recall intervening on the job in ER..with Police abusing an arrested person...On each occasion..I recorded their Badge Number and advised them I was documenting surround concerns....SOMEBODY has to stand up against anybody wearing a badge to take advantage of that....I never got any flack about it either..because THEY KNEW what they were doing was WRONG!!
It is legal. However, if you are using it in such a way as to discriminate against someone who is in a protected class, then that would be illegal. Which is what I said. If you had an apartment complex that required tenants to have a bachelor's degree or higher, that would be legal. If the local demographic is such that 80% of prospective white tenants have a bachelor's degree or higher and 5% of prospective black tenants have a bachelor's degree, then you have a strong argument that the real purpose of the policy is to discriminate on the basis of race which is of course illegal.
The mistake you made was the sentence --- 'It is perfectly legal to discriminate.' Any sensible person knew you meant that without a law prohibiting discrimination for specified reasons --- race, religion, disability, etc.., discrimination is legal --- facial tattoos, green eyes, etc..
On why these cops were fired, you're right. Violating whatever code of conduct is in their contract or terms of employment, not illegal discrimination.
Small correction. I said it's perfectly legal. Racist isn't a protected class.
If you missed the last sentence, I could see how that is confusing. That isn't the confusion. You're of the opinion that it isn't ever legal to discriminate when in actuality it is as long as you are not discriminating against a protected class. Racist is not a protected class. You can discriminate against racists, smokers, or people who do not have college educations. You can't use otherwise legal discrimination to effect what would be illegal discrimination (a proxy). The test for that is if there's a legitimate interest and that is weighed against the impact on the affected class. Eg, if all black people were smokers discriminating based on smoking would be almost impossible. You'd have to have a very compelling reason for such a policy.
It has to do with Hate Speech...which is unacceptable especially given the POWER AND CONTROL these folks have...Indicating such partisan HATE towards their President use to constitute "Treason" in the old days....but process has been made to equate it with HATE talk....IF anyone would actually equate such talk with outcomes of police shootings/killing of "SUPPOSED PERPS" ..then have the power to NOT REPORT any such things..Stats abundant on the LACK OF transparency for Police Shootings....So I don't give a pass on out of control LE Officer's as just talking...because for all their talking....followed by excessive force utilized consistently across America just makes NO SENSE!! To deny Excessive Force being perp'd under the guise of necessary needs to be addressed..like yesterday..not next decade!!
Just as a sidenote: I do recall intervening on the job in ER..with Police abusing an arrested person...On each occasion..I recorded their Badge Number and advised them I was documenting surround concerns....SOMEBODY has to stand up against anybody wearing a badge to take advantage of that....I never got any flack about it either..because THEY KNEW what they were doing was WRONG!!
Excellent. We shouldn't gloss over such serious matters. It undermines the public trust.
As much as I hate cops, they were fired for constitutionally protected speech and thought. In no way is there evidence that their beliefs impacted their performance of their jobs. Isn't this political discrimination in hiring and employment practices?
I'm not really sure you've really quantified this here, at least as far as I can recall
The mistake you made was the sentence --- 'It is perfectly legal to discriminate.' Any sensible person knew you meant that without a law prohibiting discrimination for specified reasons --- race, religion, disability, etc.., discrimination is legal --- facial tattoos, green eyes, etc..
On why these cops were fired, you're right. Violating whatever code of conduct is in their contract or terms of employment, not illegal discrimination.
Well I don't think you're correct with the "any sensible person" comment. You would think this to be true, but you'd be surprised at what people don't know. I'm being dreadfully honest here. Some folk are so used to being spoon fed their information and don't bother to verify information for themselves.
With that said, it was the way he used the term. Based on that, I had to offer the information I provided.
Small correction. I said it's perfectly legal. Racist isn't a protected class.
If you missed the last sentence, I could see how that is confusing. That isn't the confusion. You're of the opinion that it isn't ever legal to discriminate when in actuality it is as long as you are not discriminating against a protected class. Racist is not a protected class. You can discriminate against racists, smokers, or people who do not have college educations. You can't use otherwise legal discrimination to effect what would be illegal discrimination (a proxy). The test for that is if there's a legitimate interest and that is weighed against the impact on the affected class. Eg, if all black people were smokers discriminating based on smoking would be almost impossible. You'd have to have a very compelling reason for such a policy.
I understand this. However, because this is a police station (which receives federal money; and likely has laws in place that prohibit such hate speech; and also has its own policy) they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
Free speech is not free. There are always consequences. We have free will to do say, distribute, but there are consequences.
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.
