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.
I was wondering about the third member of the group not being fired also since it seemed he had been heavily involved in the planning. However the last sentence of the article placated my feelings considerably. That sentence says just why these women will win their case since sexual mistreatment was also involved in the suit.
Now the article also says that the oil left no trace and didn't hurt the material of the doorway.
Thanks for the research that helped to prove that the women have been treated improperly.
So if someone was eating KFC and got some finger lickin' goodness on my desk, I was harassed?
If you didn't give them permission to use your desk to eat their KFC, if they just left the grease and crumbs on the desk for you, then they showed they didn't have much respect for you, didn't they? If they also sat at your desk with their friends and criticized you while you weren't there, not so much respect in that either. And that's what they were doing, the prayers have a flip side, they suggest that there is something wrong with the woman not present, that needs to be fixed. That's criticism, that's why people have made the "passive-aggressive" comments.
You don't go to someone's personal cubicle and violate that person's space. It's not nice.
Especially since later in the article, this is stated:
"The suit also alleges age and sex discrimination, saying that the university took no action against the other employee involved in the prayer, "a male under the age of 40.""
Hmmm, I guess you see something in that sentence that I missed. I see that they are automatic winners because of sexual discrimination with a little age discrimination thrown in. They are going to win and somebody's lawyers let them down. Those of the university just plain let this get out of hand.
Good lord. The article says "co-worker." I responded to someone calling him/her a man. Not sure how you know it was a woman, but it makes no difference now does it.
Defensive, defensive. I read the thread and the links. The information that it was a female employee on vacation was in the Houston Chronicle article. I was simply clarifying, because it does add some interesting questions to the puzzle. It was a man who had problems with this employee, she was a female, he went to two women to try to resolve this problem. That's interesting because he made a choice not to go to management or to HR. So her gender might make a difference, if we knew more about this.
I'd say they're running neck to neck with the "Reverse Discrimination" threads.
Did you read the last link in this thread? If so, you would have seen that the women have age and sex discrimination in their suit, also and they are going to win because of these two things. Read that one, Bagger and I am sure you will see what is going on.
If you didn't give them permission to use your desk to eat their KFC, if they just left the grease and crumbs on the desk for you, then they showed they didn't have much respect for you, didn't they? If they also sat at your desk with their friends and criticized you while you weren't there, not so much respect in that either. And that's what they were doing, the prayers have a flip side, they suggest that there is something wrong with the woman not present, that needs to be fixed. That's criticism, that's why people have made the "passive-aggressive" comments.
You don't go to someone's personal cubicle and violate that person's space. It's not nice.
I agree with everything that you wrote; still not seeing the "harassment" part.
People an interesting article was linked to by Dane_in_LA in post number 33 in this thread and it tells so much more about what actually is going on and it seems that nobody here has read it or will likely read it since it is so far back. I would be embarrassed if I said what some of you are saying without having read that link. Here it is. Read the last sentence in it and then see why these women are sure winners unless that reporter said a lie.
Defensive, defensive. I read the thread and the links. The information that it was a female employee on vacation was in the Houston Chronicle article. I was simply clarifying, because it does add some interesting questions to the puzzle. It was a man who had problems with this employee, she was a female, he went to two women to try to resolve this problem. That's interesting because he made a choice not to go to management or to HR. So her gender might make a difference, if we knew more about this.
Just read that (rather short) article. It does add a bit that she's a woman, etc.
I still think the university is on thin ice here if this was the gist of their argument as stated in that article:
Not sure how you can be harassed without knowing you are being harassed. That just defies my basic sense of logic.
It seems like the "harassment" part would have to come later. Like if they told the employee about it, or said that the employee was a demon or something to other employees. But nothing like that is mentioned.
While this is quirky and unprofessional, it was after hours, and occurred when the person wasn't there. There wasn't oil all over the place, just a dab on the outside wall that left no mark.
From the info we've seen, it seems like the boss could have just documented it, warned the folks, etc. But to fire someone over this ( a prayer) is just inviting a lawsuit. Fire them for being late 3x, or taking a pen home, anything would be better than this - and a whole lot less of a mess in the courts.
Hmmm, I guess you see something in that sentence that I missed. I see that they are automatic winners because of sexual discrimination with a little age discrimination thrown in. They are going to win and somebody's lawyers let them down. Those of the university just plain let this get out of hand.
They have somewhat of a case of sexual discrimination, if htat was the only factor in their being fired. If there were more factors, such as previous incidents (not like this one, per say) involving their work ethic and such rolling UP to this one, but that depends on the University providing such information.
However, it's rather CLEAR that this is in no way "religious discrimination".
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.
Wake Up People
