11 ms·

Documenting a problem is completely different from public humiliation. This company did the right thing. You say Adria received abuse, but out of all I have rea

Documenting a problem is completely different from public humiliation. This company did the right thing. You say Adria received abuse, but out of all I have read, including her own blog post, she was not abused. She was the aggressor. These men didn't even know she was offended. If she would have asked them to be more polite, I am confident they would have done the right thing. You, I must say, are causing an issue with a company in the right. So maybe they are better off without you, Heh?

7beersonthewall 14y ago
Right on... She went to Twitter. She opened the can of worms instead of saying something directly to them. She should have expected what she got.
- monkeyspaw 14y ago
  You can't seriously suggest that she deserved the misogynistic abuse heaped on after the fact, can you?
  - jrdn 14y ago
    No, she didn't. The Internet hate machine went out of control as it has a tendency to do. The fact that gaooened afterwards, however, doesn't make her initial reaction to name and shame these guys more acceptable.
    - dalke 14y ago
      Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was put into place precisely because people in a discriminated group would speak out, only to be told that their manner of speaking out was not "acceptable." "Speaking out" under Title VII includes picketing, writing letters to customers about the discrimination, and engaging in work slow-downs. These are not acceptable actions to some, but they are legally protected actions and a company cannot fire an employee who carried out one of these actions. Since what she wrote specifically refers to sexual harassment ("Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964". "[It] constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment", "The harasser can be ... a non-employee." - EEOC's "Facts about Sexual Harassment"), it's almost certainly a protected action under Title VII. If so, then while it may not be acceptable to you and various others, it's illegal for her company to fire her because of that action. Assuming I understand the law correctly. To show I'm not just making this up, I'll quote from the judgement in Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990): In addition to protecting the filing of formal charges of discrimination, Sec. 704(a)'s opposition clause protects as well informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general, and expressing support of co-workers who have filed formal charges. See Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989), and Schlei & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law, 548-49 (1983)." See the part about "protesting against discrimination by industry"? Doesn't that describe this situation almost exactly? Now, if she broke a law, or violated some employee policy in a way that has nothing to do with Title VII nor is some other illegal practice (eg, it's illegal to suddenly fire her for doing personal blogging during company time if her supervisors had long known about that practice and had never given a caution or warning that it was a fireable offense) then that's a different issue. But no one has suggested anything of this sort. So, while you might be offended by what she did, that doesn't mean she "should have expected what she got" if that includes that she got fired from her job.
dalke 14y ago
I really don't see how you can so easily say that "[t]his company did the right thing." I looked, but found nothing in the laws prohibiting this form of "public humiliation". Defamation? Yes. Slander? Yes. But it appears to be a protected free speech right to post pictures that were taken in public places and to write truthful personal accounts of what happened. (And I found a lot of people who want to sue their landlord/ boss/ neighbor/ cashier/ etc. for public humiliation. I really don't think you want to open that can of worms.) In fact, it appears (based on my limited reading of EEOC laws), that firing someone solely for making a claim about sexual discrimination may be illegal. Quoting from the EEOC compliance manual at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB : > Public criticism of alleged discrimination may be a reasonable form of opposition. Courts have protected an employee's right to inform an employer's customers about the employer's alleged discrimination, as well as the right to engage in peaceful picketing to oppose allegedly discriminatory employment practices. Picketing surely contains an element of public humiliation, no? I'm sure that the factory owners would love to fire the picketers because the picketers were causing the factory owners to be humiliated in public. I then dug up the cited Circuit Court case, Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990). It says: > To establish that his activity is protected under Title VII, a plaintiff need not prove the merit of his underlying discrimination complaint, but only that he was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation existed. Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989); Manoharan v. Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d Cir.1988). In addition to protecting the filing of formal charges of discrimination, Sec. 704(a)'s opposition clause protects as well informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general, and expressing support of co-workers who have filed formal charges. See Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989), and Schlei & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law, 548-49 (1983). So, Title VII protect employees who make "informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including ... writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general." Huh. That sounds like a pretty close description of this event, doesn't it? It really reads like the various actions of Sanders are explicitly covered under Title VII protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If so, that means that firing her - if done because of those actions - illegal. When you say the company was "right", do you mean that as a moral statement independent of what the law says? Or do you actually think that the this was a legal workplace action? If the latter, could you elaborate on how it avoids the seemingly relevant Title VII protections? When doing so, please remember that select enforcement of employee rules is also illegal. For example, if you argue that it's acceptable to fire this employee because she took identifiable pictures of others in a public space, while on company time, then it can't be that others in the company have done the same and weren't fired. Similarly, if her supervisors have seen those sorts of pictures before and never gave a warning that they are against company policy, then they don't have much of a legal leg to stand on by suddenly enforcing it now.

7beersonthewall 14y ago

Right on... She went to Twitter. She opened the can of worms instead of saying something directly to them. She should have expected what she got.

monkeyspaw 14y ago
You can't seriously suggest that she deserved the misogynistic abuse heaped on after the fact, can you?
- jrdn 14y ago
  No, she didn't. The Internet hate machine went out of control as it has a tendency to do. The fact that gaooened afterwards, however, doesn't make her initial reaction to name and shame these guys more acceptable.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was put into place precisely because people in a discriminated group would speak out, only to be told that their manner of speaking out was not "acceptable." "Speaking out" under Title VII includes picketing, writing letters to customers about the discrimination, and engaging in work slow-downs. These are not acceptable actions to some, but they are legally protected actions and a company cannot fire an employee who carried out one of these actions. Since what she wrote specifically refers to sexual harassment ("Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964". "[It] constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment", "The harasser can be ... a non-employee." - EEOC's "Facts about Sexual Harassment"), it's almost certainly a protected action under Title VII. If so, then while it may not be acceptable to you and various others, it's illegal for her company to fire her because of that action. Assuming I understand the law correctly. To show I'm not just making this up, I'll quote from the judgement in Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990): In addition to protecting the filing of formal charges of discrimination, Sec. 704(a)'s opposition clause protects as well informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general, and expressing support of co-workers who have filed formal charges. See Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989), and Schlei & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law, 548-49 (1983)." See the part about "protesting against discrimination by industry"? Doesn't that describe this situation almost exactly? Now, if she broke a law, or violated some employee policy in a way that has nothing to do with Title VII nor is some other illegal practice (eg, it's illegal to suddenly fire her for doing personal blogging during company time if her supervisors had long known about that practice and had never given a caution or warning that it was a fireable offense) then that's a different issue. But no one has suggested anything of this sort. So, while you might be offended by what she did, that doesn't mean she "should have expected what she got" if that includes that she got fired from her job.

dalke 14y ago

I really don't see how you can so easily say that "[t]his company did the right thing." I looked, but found nothing in the laws prohibiting this form of "public humiliation". Defamation? Yes. Slander? Yes. But it appears to be a protected free speech right to post pictures that were taken in public places and to write truthful personal accounts of what happened. (And I found a lot of people who want to sue their landlord/ boss/ neighbor/ cashier/ etc. for public humiliation. I really don't think you want to open that can of worms.) In fact, it appears (based on my limited reading of EEOC laws), that firing someone solely for making a claim about sexual discrimination may be illegal. Quoting from the EEOC compliance manual at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB : > Public criticism of alleged discrimination may be a reasonable form of opposition. Courts have protected an employee's right to inform an employer's customers about the employer's alleged discrimination, as well as the right to engage in peaceful picketing to oppose allegedly discriminatory employment practices. Picketing surely contains an element of public humiliation, no? I'm sure that the factory owners would love to fire the picketers because the picketers were causing the factory owners to be humiliated in public. I then dug up the cited Circuit Court case, Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990). It says: > To establish that his activity is protected under Title VII, a plaintiff need not prove the merit of his underlying discrimination complaint, but only that he was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation existed. Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989); Manoharan v. Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d Cir.1988). In addition to protecting the filing of formal charges of discrimination, Sec. 704(a)'s opposition clause protects as well informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general, and expressing support of co-workers who have filed formal charges. See Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989), and Schlei & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law, 548-49 (1983). So, Title VII protect employees who make "informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including ... writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general." Huh. That sounds like a pretty close description of this event, doesn't it? It really reads like the various actions of Sanders are explicitly covered under Title VII protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If so, that means that firing her - if done because of those actions - illegal. When you say the company was "right", do you mean that as a moral statement independent of what the law says? Or do you actually think that the this was a legal workplace action? If the latter, could you elaborate on how it avoids the seemingly relevant Title VII protections? When doing so, please remember that select enforcement of employee rules is also illegal. For example, if you argue that it's acceptable to fire this employee because she took identifiable pictures of others in a public space, while on company time, then it can't be that others in the company have done the same and weren't fired. Similarly, if her supervisors have seen those sorts of pictures before and never gave a warning that they are against company policy, then they don't have much of a legal leg to stand on by suddenly enforcing it now.