4 ms·

This isn't much different from someone getting mugged by someone from a different class or race and then concluding that "those people" can't be trusted. Sad.

gavanwoolery 13y ago
I think that what the author is saying is that every person who can sue for discrimination might (and by "might", I mean there is a very small chance of it). This is valid, I guess, (assuming the author's story is the whole truth of the incident) -- but like I said the author should rephrase his words.
protomyth 13y ago
Actually, it is different. The "normal" mugger gets caught and goes to jail, this one has a loophole that allows hum to walk off with your wallet without being arrested. It's a basic scam created by a law. You see it with some injury cases[1] and many of the lawyers suing businesses based on the ADA. The law is meant to protect people from an injustice done, but can be used in the opposite manner. Chilling affects like these are often mitigated by documentation by HR. Specifically, performance reviews and performance improvement plans. He was not equipped to provide the documentation. This is just a reality and cold logic. You can say he is "Sad", but he is expressing the "stick hand in fire" learning of the situation. The sadness should be expressed to the folks who fit into the spirit of the law that has been abused. 1) often with headlines "X who collects disability enters a triathlon" or similar sensationalist stuff.
- blatherard 13y ago
  There's plenty of ways for people to take advantage of their employers and the law does effectively nothing for the aggrieved. One case I directly encountered was a young, white male who was responsible for procurement for a small company I was working for. It turned out he was ordering all kinds of stuff for himself (the one thing I remember is he bought a game console with it). He was fired and the police were called. Their response was basically, since he had permission to order stuff, they weren't going to pursue it. The law failed here, too! But let me tell you what didn't happen: nobody decided to use that as a reason to not hire young, white males. What did happen, correctly, was some additional controls were put in to prevent abuse.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    You react to what your burned with. Most places put in the control measures I mentioned. Some go the way of the poster particularly if they cannot afford an HR solution. The stats on disabled employment since the passage of the ADA are problematic. Who did the company next hire for procurement?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- sp332 13y ago
  This scam is certainly illegal, and Dave could fight the claim of discrimination. It just wasn't worth the legal fees to do it.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Its amazing how something that is "illegal" only has consequences when you are rich enough to defend your rights in court. This causes a situation where the only sane, fiscally sensible response is to not get burned again.

gavanwoolery 13y ago

I think that what the author is saying is that every person who can sue for discrimination might (and by "might", I mean there is a very small chance of it). This is valid, I guess, (assuming the author's story is the whole truth of the incident) -- but like I said the author should rephrase his words.

protomyth 13y ago

Actually, it is different. The "normal" mugger gets caught and goes to jail, this one has a loophole that allows hum to walk off with your wallet without being arrested. It's a basic scam created by a law. You see it with some injury cases[1] and many of the lawyers suing businesses based on the ADA. The law is meant to protect people from an injustice done, but can be used in the opposite manner. Chilling affects like these are often mitigated by documentation by HR. Specifically, performance reviews and performance improvement plans. He was not equipped to provide the documentation. This is just a reality and cold logic. You can say he is "Sad", but he is expressing the "stick hand in fire" learning of the situation. The sadness should be expressed to the folks who fit into the spirit of the law that has been abused. 1) often with headlines "X who collects disability enters a triathlon" or similar sensationalist stuff.

blatherard 13y ago
There's plenty of ways for people to take advantage of their employers and the law does effectively nothing for the aggrieved. One case I directly encountered was a young, white male who was responsible for procurement for a small company I was working for. It turned out he was ordering all kinds of stuff for himself (the one thing I remember is he bought a game console with it). He was fired and the police were called. Their response was basically, since he had permission to order stuff, they weren't going to pursue it. The law failed here, too! But let me tell you what didn't happen: nobody decided to use that as a reason to not hire young, white males. What did happen, correctly, was some additional controls were put in to prevent abuse.
- protomyth 13y ago
  You react to what your burned with. Most places put in the control measures I mentioned. Some go the way of the poster particularly if they cannot afford an HR solution. The stats on disabled employment since the passage of the ADA are problematic. Who did the company next hire for procurement?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
sp332 13y ago
This scam is certainly illegal, and Dave could fight the claim of discrimination. It just wasn't worth the legal fees to do it.
- protomyth 13y ago
  Its amazing how something that is "illegal" only has consequences when you are rich enough to defend your rights in court. This causes a situation where the only sane, fiscally sensible response is to not get burned again.