3 ms·

I think you misunderstood my comment. From my understanding of the law, which is limited I might add, this company has every right to fire her if she no longer

I think you misunderstood my comment. From my understanding of the law, which is limited I might add, this company has every right to fire her if she no longer fulfills her job requirements to the company's standards. She was at this conference representing her company. She is expected by her company to act with a certain level of professionalism. The public humiliation I spoke of took place during a time in which she was on the clock so to speak. This is where she went wrong. She represented her company in a very negative way by humiliating these men, quite tactlessly, in public. In this sense she was being quite hypocritical. She was acting just as unprofessional if not worse than the men making the jokes. I do believe that this is proper justification for firing an employee (as was observed when the man who made the joke was fired by his company.) The public humiliation I spoke of was not legal justification for her termination. It was the fact that she represented her company in an unprofessional manner that led to her being fired. If she would have been mature and confronted these men, as grown ups should, this all could have been avoided. The only reason I say she was the aggressor is the simple fact that these men didn't even know they were offending her. They were in the wrong, most definitely, but that does not make it right for her to act unprofessionally as well. As far as I can tell, this company's choice was legal and in their best interest.

dalke 14y ago
"this company has every right to fire her if she no longer fulfills her job requirements to the company's standards" My observation is that there are certain standards which are illegal for a company to use as the basis for firing someone. For example, a company may not fire someone based on marital status. Even if there is a company policy that only single people may be employed at a company. Nor may an accountant be fired for wearing a yarmulke at work; some workplace religious practices being another protected policy. These don't even need to be Title VII violations. It is illegal for a company (at least in Colorado, which is where this company is located) to fire a janitor who, in off-hours, enjoys being a street mime, that being a 'lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours' and doesn't fit any of the exceptions to the law. So just saying that something is unprofessional and against company policy, doesn't mean that that is lawful basis for firing someone, because acting on that policy can be illegal. I think you agree with that. (I'm setting up for the next part.) Your view is instead that "the fact that she represented her company in an unprofessional manner that led to her being fired." The problem is that the law doesn't appear to allow the company to use this form of unprofessional behavior as the basis for firing someone. If it did, then any act that a company disagreed with, while done during company time, would be illegal. For example, under the NLRA a company may NOT "prohibit you from wearing union hats, buttons, t-shirts, and pins in the workplace except under special circumstances", even if you are on company time, representing the company, and the company policy says that wearing your union pin is "unprofessional." The law is very clear that there are things that a company may not use as grounds for firing. Reporting sexual harassment is a protected action, public discussion of sexual discrimination in industry or at a workplace is also a protected action, public shaming of one's employer for allowing discriminatory practices is a protected action. This is well settled by the courts. Now the Title VII protections only apply so long as every reasonable person would say that there was justification to believe there was discriminatory act, even if this belief ends up being false. The court cases I read are very careful to point out that employees aren't expected to know the law and that some actions, while apparently discriminatory on the surface, are actually not. Even in those cases, an incorrect claim of discrimination may not be used as the basis for firing someone. Making false accusations is not covered by this law. An employee cannot make false claims about sexual harassment while at the workplace and expect to be protected under Title VII or similar laws. So it's not like this is a safe harbor for spreading lies and misinformation. To conclude, where in all the laws and court cases that allow someone to make a private report of sexual harassment, without fear of reprisal through firing, does it say that making a public report of sexual harassment is not also protected? Because I can't find it even after several hours of research.
- bigalo93 14y ago
  I think our views of reality are too different to discuss this matter. I have never observed a situation in which a company is made to keep an employee that doesn't perform to their standards. Public discussion of sexual discrimination is not what this woman did and therefore should not be protected. Unless you think that these men were sexually discriminating against Adria when they were talking about the male speakers dongle. This has nothing to do with sexual discrimination or harassment.
  - dalke 14y ago
    You might not have observed them because the companies you were associated with were following the law and because you've not researched the topic. I listed several standards which are illegal. It is illegal to prohibit someone to wear a cross necklace while at work (unless it directly interferes with the job). It is illegal to have mandatory maternity leave rules. It is illegal to say that only woman can be cashiers and men can be stock the shelves. These have all gone to court, and been found to be discriminatory and illegal workplace standards. In your view of reality, have you read any of the court cases involving Title VII violations? I listed several for you to review. Is your view of reality influenced by documents like the EEOC compliance manual? "Public discussion of sexual discrimination is not what this woman did" Even if this wasn't a "public discussion of sexual discrimination", it can still be a protected action. As I pointed out, the 2nd Circuit affirms that people may "write critical letters to customers." That's a protected action even if it isn't 'public discussion', so insisting on both "public" and "discussion" is too restrictive. So you can't argue that since this didn't fall under your definition of public discussion, therefore it isn't protected. You have to show how what occurred wasn't a protected action under Title VII. "Unless you think that these men were sexually discriminating against Adria when they were talking about the male speakers dongle." The law doesn't require that the discriminatory behavior be directed towards the person making the complaint. Nor does the law exclude women from complaining about sexist jokes directed towards men. Your objections do not appear to valid exclusions under the law. You say "This has nothing to do with sexual discrimination or harassment". The law doesn't require that the claims of sexual discrimination or harassment actually be true. Only that the person who made the claim was well-intentioned and that at least one reasonable person would make the same claim. If there a reasonable person can make the same claim, then the complaint is protected under Title VII - even if it was found to be non-discriminatory. You can say that it's against some unspecified company policy, but the EEOC points out that that reasoning can't be used as pretext. Quoting from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB : > Even if the respondent produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, a violation will still be found if this explanation is a pretext designed to hide the true retaliatory motive. Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity\52. Do you really think she would have been fired had there not been "heightened scrutiny"?

dalke 14y ago

"this company has every right to fire her if she no longer fulfills her job requirements to the company's standards" My observation is that there are certain standards which are illegal for a company to use as the basis for firing someone. For example, a company may not fire someone based on marital status. Even if there is a company policy that only single people may be employed at a company. Nor may an accountant be fired for wearing a yarmulke at work; some workplace religious practices being another protected policy. These don't even need to be Title VII violations. It is illegal for a company (at least in Colorado, which is where this company is located) to fire a janitor who, in off-hours, enjoys being a street mime, that being a 'lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours' and doesn't fit any of the exceptions to the law. So just saying that something is unprofessional and against company policy, doesn't mean that that is lawful basis for firing someone, because acting on that policy can be illegal. I think you agree with that. (I'm setting up for the next part.) Your view is instead that "the fact that she represented her company in an unprofessional manner that led to her being fired." The problem is that the law doesn't appear to allow the company to use this form of unprofessional behavior as the basis for firing someone. If it did, then any act that a company disagreed with, while done during company time, would be illegal. For example, under the NLRA a company may NOT "prohibit you from wearing union hats, buttons, t-shirts, and pins in the workplace except under special circumstances", even if you are on company time, representing the company, and the company policy says that wearing your union pin is "unprofessional." The law is very clear that there are things that a company may not use as grounds for firing. Reporting sexual harassment is a protected action, public discussion of sexual discrimination in industry or at a workplace is also a protected action, public shaming of one's employer for allowing discriminatory practices is a protected action. This is well settled by the courts. Now the Title VII protections only apply so long as every reasonable person would say that there was justification to believe there was discriminatory act, even if this belief ends up being false. The court cases I read are very careful to point out that employees aren't expected to know the law and that some actions, while apparently discriminatory on the surface, are actually not. Even in those cases, an incorrect claim of discrimination may not be used as the basis for firing someone. Making false accusations is not covered by this law. An employee cannot make false claims about sexual harassment while at the workplace and expect to be protected under Title VII or similar laws. So it's not like this is a safe harbor for spreading lies and misinformation. To conclude, where in all the laws and court cases that allow someone to make a private report of sexual harassment, without fear of reprisal through firing, does it say that making a public report of sexual harassment is not also protected? Because I can't find it even after several hours of research.

bigalo93 14y ago
I think our views of reality are too different to discuss this matter. I have never observed a situation in which a company is made to keep an employee that doesn't perform to their standards. Public discussion of sexual discrimination is not what this woman did and therefore should not be protected. Unless you think that these men were sexually discriminating against Adria when they were talking about the male speakers dongle. This has nothing to do with sexual discrimination or harassment.
- dalke 14y ago
  You might not have observed them because the companies you were associated with were following the law and because you've not researched the topic. I listed several standards which are illegal. It is illegal to prohibit someone to wear a cross necklace while at work (unless it directly interferes with the job). It is illegal to have mandatory maternity leave rules. It is illegal to say that only woman can be cashiers and men can be stock the shelves. These have all gone to court, and been found to be discriminatory and illegal workplace standards. In your view of reality, have you read any of the court cases involving Title VII violations? I listed several for you to review. Is your view of reality influenced by documents like the EEOC compliance manual? "Public discussion of sexual discrimination is not what this woman did" Even if this wasn't a "public discussion of sexual discrimination", it can still be a protected action. As I pointed out, the 2nd Circuit affirms that people may "write critical letters to customers." That's a protected action even if it isn't 'public discussion', so insisting on both "public" and "discussion" is too restrictive. So you can't argue that since this didn't fall under your definition of public discussion, therefore it isn't protected. You have to show how what occurred wasn't a protected action under Title VII. "Unless you think that these men were sexually discriminating against Adria when they were talking about the male speakers dongle." The law doesn't require that the discriminatory behavior be directed towards the person making the complaint. Nor does the law exclude women from complaining about sexist jokes directed towards men. Your objections do not appear to valid exclusions under the law. You say "This has nothing to do with sexual discrimination or harassment". The law doesn't require that the claims of sexual discrimination or harassment actually be true. Only that the person who made the claim was well-intentioned and that at least one reasonable person would make the same claim. If there a reasonable person can make the same claim, then the complaint is protected under Title VII - even if it was found to be non-discriminatory. You can say that it's against some unspecified company policy, but the EEOC points out that that reasoning can't be used as pretext. Quoting from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB : > Even if the respondent produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, a violation will still be found if this explanation is a pretext designed to hide the true retaliatory motive. Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity\52. Do you really think she would have been fired had there not been "heightened scrutiny"?