On the clock or off, when employees do dumb stuff on Facebook, it could cost them their jobs. And, apparently, their discrimination claims against their former employer too.
Yep, another employee screwed up online. Go figure.
More on that after the jump…
The Benjamin Moore color gallery contains, among others, Clinton Brown and Tucker Chocolate.
My virgin ears! I mean, how racist can you get?!? Or, so says Clinton Tucker, a former Benjamin Moore employee, who filed a complaint in New Jersey state court in which he alleges that these paint names are hella-racist.
According to Courthouse News Service (here), Tucker says that “being a black man named Clinton Tucker, the plaintiff found this to be extremely racially offensive.”
Over the weekend, I read this opinion in a race-discrimination with facts so egregious, they’d make David Duke blush.
Let me set the scene for you. This is a workplace where, allegedly, several of the white employees displayed Confederate flag paraphernalia. I’ll spare you a verbatim review of the racial graffiti and epithets — you can view it here — but, it was pretty darn bad. And what about multiple nooses in the workplace — eight in total.
[Sidebar: I once attended a deposition of an Ivy League-educated HR Manager who testified that there was a time when she did not understand how a hangman’s noose in the workplace would offend a black employee. Hubba-what?!? Folks, just so we’re clear here, a hangman’s noose is the single worst symbol of racial hate. Period. So eight of ’em is hella-bad!]
The thing about this law-blogging gig, other than the money, power and women, of course, is the pride of being first to post about a crazy new case.
Last week, I missed out on the nude sunbather who sued an elementary school-employer for retaliation. Well, Jon Hyman at the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, I see your nude sunbather and raise you two white guys and a native american who dressed as klansmen at work, allowed themselves to be photographed, and then sued for race discrimination. Boom!
Yes, this really happened.
More on this one after the jump…
It was Gloria Steinem who, in discussing President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions with Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, fashioned the “one free grope” rule. That is, while not condoning President Clinton’s actions, Steinem concluded that one touching is not sexual harassment — at least as a matter law.
Well, yesterday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, saw Steinem’s “one-free-grope” rule and raised her a “two-free-slurs” rule.
In Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleu Corp., (opinion (here), a black plaintiff alleged that her co-worker referred to her as a “porch monkey” twice in two days, from which she claimed to have been subjected to a racially hostile work environment.
In a few weeks, the National Football League owners are going to consider a proposed rule governing the use of the “N”-word during a football game. If the rule goes into effect, any team with a player who uses the “N”-word during a game, will be assessed a 15-yard penalty.
Players, young and old, disagree on the rule.
Here are Michael Wilbon and Jason Whitlock from ESPN’s Outside the Lines debating the merits of the proposed new rule.
Just a reminder that some managers still engage in really stupid behavior.
I was reading this case about an HR Manager of a dentistry practice.
Following an interview between a dentist in her practice and an African-American woman, the dentist allegedly commented to the HR Manager that the person would not be hired, as there were already too many blacks in Lewisville. The HR Manager then supposedly responded that “race is irrelevant.”
On MLK Day, with a few of my co-workers and my four-year-old son, I performed community service. We went to a local center and spent a few hours making peanut butter sandwiches to feed the homeless.
Actually, we spent a half-hour or so making sandwiches. Most of us spent the remainder of the time continuing to make sandwiches, while my son ate peanut butter.
Win-win.
That may be sugar coating it a bit.
A county employee, who applied for a lateral transfer, and ultimately received that transfer, was able to convince two judges on a federal appellate court that the transfer was discriminatory.
That’s right. An employee may have a discrimination claim for receiving the specific transfer he requested.
The Employer Handbook Blog