4 ms·

> Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal. You can of course be fired for that inappropriate behavior, but it isn't ill

> Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal. You can of course be fired for that inappropriate behavior, but it isn't illegal. A correct statement, but one that skirts around the issue at hand: in this situation the people berating their evangelical coworker are creating a hostile workplace environment and the company is obligated to take actions to remidiate this situation. If the climate denier points out this hostile workplace behavior, they're not censoring any particular view. Only the hostile actions of their co-worker. While Weiss' high profile position makes it much more likely to receive public scrutiny, she is indeed entitled to the same workplace protections as a mid level software developer. Working as a columnist doesn't absolve a company of their legal responsibility to curb workplace harassment. Your workplace is a captive audience. What is legal for some random person to say to you is not at all the same standard that is applied to co-workers. Weiss calling this behavior out as discrimination is not calling any particular belief illegal, only the treatment towards her by her coworkers.

slg 6y ago
A hostile work environment requires discrimination. She is not being discriminated against. Having smart and well supported opinions is part of the requirements of her job. Therefore her opinions are subject to extra scrutiny compared to the opinions of someone who is asked to do an entirely different job.
- manfredo 6y ago
  No, a hostile work environment does not require discrimination. A workplace that is entirely non-discriminatory but does nothing when one co-worker relentlessly bullies and harasses another co-worker is still a hostile workplace. You seem to be misled by the fact that anti-discrimination laws prohibit hostile workplaces, and that hostile workplaces are considered a form of discrimination, but there's no requirement that the hostility be discriminatory in nature. A co-worker harassing another co-worker without any particular discrimination is still harassment. I can call a co-worker an idiot and a worthless human being relentlessly, all day long. That's not discriminatory in nature. I'm not referring to a protected class like gender, race, or religion. Does it follow that it isn't creating a hostile workplace? https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment
  - slg 6y ago
    Did you read the page you linked? The very first sentence of the body of the page states: >Harassment is a form of employment discrimination... It goes on to say: >Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. They are defining harassment as requiring the behavior to be based on a protected class and categorizing it as a subset of discrimination. Therefore if a hostile environment requires harassment, it inherently requires discrimination.
    - Manfredo_1 6y ago
      So if a coworker goes to your workplace every day and says, "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment? Because it's not based on race, religion, sex, etc? The article particularly highlights harassment in the basis of protected class. It does not say that harassment on the basis of things other than protected class is permitted. If what you claim is true, then in the above scenario you would not be able to claim harassment with respect to a co-worker that constantly insults you. And regardless even if harassment does require discrimination, Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion. No she doesn't. The harassment isn't due to her religion, it's due to how she conducts herself as part of her job. (and it doesn't meet the line for harassment anyway, people expressing workplace disagreements isn't harassment, as much as she may want to dress it up). > "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment? It could be criminal harassment (but even this is unlikely) it is not, however, workplace harassment. Speech protections in the united states are incredibly broad and protect many forms of assholery. This is not news to many people to have been subject to harassment that isn't legally harassment before.
        6y ago

slg 6y ago

A hostile work environment requires discrimination. She is not being discriminated against. Having smart and well supported opinions is part of the requirements of her job. Therefore her opinions are subject to extra scrutiny compared to the opinions of someone who is asked to do an entirely different job.

manfredo 6y ago
No, a hostile work environment does not require discrimination. A workplace that is entirely non-discriminatory but does nothing when one co-worker relentlessly bullies and harasses another co-worker is still a hostile workplace. You seem to be misled by the fact that anti-discrimination laws prohibit hostile workplaces, and that hostile workplaces are considered a form of discrimination, but there's no requirement that the hostility be discriminatory in nature. A co-worker harassing another co-worker without any particular discrimination is still harassment. I can call a co-worker an idiot and a worthless human being relentlessly, all day long. That's not discriminatory in nature. I'm not referring to a protected class like gender, race, or religion. Does it follow that it isn't creating a hostile workplace? https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment
- slg 6y ago
  Did you read the page you linked? The very first sentence of the body of the page states: >Harassment is a form of employment discrimination... It goes on to say: >Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. They are defining harassment as requiring the behavior to be based on a protected class and categorizing it as a subset of discrimination. Therefore if a hostile environment requires harassment, it inherently requires discrimination.
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    So if a coworker goes to your workplace every day and says, "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment? Because it's not based on race, religion, sex, etc? The article particularly highlights harassment in the basis of protected class. It does not say that harassment on the basis of things other than protected class is permitted. If what you claim is true, then in the above scenario you would not be able to claim harassment with respect to a co-worker that constantly insults you. And regardless even if harassment does require discrimination, Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion. No she doesn't. The harassment isn't due to her religion, it's due to how she conducts herself as part of her job. (and it doesn't meet the line for harassment anyway, people expressing workplace disagreements isn't harassment, as much as she may want to dress it up). > "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment? It could be criminal harassment (but even this is unlikely) it is not, however, workplace harassment. Speech protections in the united states are incredibly broad and protect many forms of assholery. This is not news to many people to have been subject to harassment that isn't legally harassment before.
      - 6y ago