Jim Stillman
Nevar
ENDA, an expansion of Federal Anti-Discrimination laws, should be enacted.
November 11th 2007 21:44
A fellow writer on Orble has written a post on the possible enactment of the extension of the Federal Nondiscrimination statute to include sexual orientation, in her usual “Chicken Little, The Sky is Falling” mode. Moreover, a number of her comments to the article reflect a disturbing misunderstanding of the risk of frivolous lawsuits. This writer has a broad depth of inaccurate or incomplete knowledge which she trots out to justify condemnation of a, as she puts it, “new crop of liberal politicians”.
I had been determined to ignore the Wicked Witch of the West, but this most recent bit of silliness requires addressing.
The proposed Federal law is known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA and has passed the House of Representatives on November 7, 2007 by a 235-184 margin. Whether it will be approved by the Senate is, of course, unknown; it should be.
First, the proposed expansion of the Federal non-discrimination rules, expressly does not apply to any business having fewer than 15 employees nor does it apply to any tax-exempt religious organization. So, the WWW has her undies in a wad over a law, that by its terms, does not apply to her. faith
As to the merits of not allowing employment decisions dependent on one’s race faith or sexual orientation, 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in both public and private jobs: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. In Oregon, while no state law has been passed to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment, at least one court case found that sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited under the state's constitution. In addition, seven states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
Moreover, a vast number of local governments have incorporated sexual orientation into their non-discrimination laws.
Want to know something? The world hasn’t come to an end.
A comment brought some non-hysterical thoughts:
The law does not make it legally required for you to hire homosexuals, what it does however is ensure you do not use sexual persuasion as a means to not employ someone.
If you don't hire a homosexual because he is not qualified for the job then he can't successfully sue you on grounds of discrimination. If you however choose not to hire a homosexual who is more than qualified (especially when put up against other candidates) then you will probably be successfully sued.
The only time you could feasibly even be sued for this discrimination is if you openly ask 'are you gay?' in a job that has nothing to do with sexual persuasion. If you do ask such a question then you give the person reason to suspect you're discriminating against him or her based on sexual persuasion.
But if what you say is true, and you have never asked an employee about sexual persuasion then you're more or less in the clear. Such laws already exist to protect people of different race and extending it to include sexual persuasion is only natural.
WWW’s response was that she could be sued. When it was pointed out that such a suit (if without merit) would cost the plaintiff, we fell into the “frivolous lawsuit” argument which serves to demean lawyers and liberals – a double header, as it were.
It happens that I am familiar with these cases, so beloved by those who have an ax to grind. Let’s take the McDonald’s case first.
For a full exposition of this case, one should check out Really Long Link
In this case a 79 year old grandmother, Stella Liebeck. was burned when 180° coffee spilled on her. Her injuries were substantial, third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Was serving the coffee at that temperature dangerous? Was McDonalds aware of the danger? Expert testimony at trial established that other servers of coffee did so at 135°, which would cause no serious injury if spilled. Finally, during discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck’s. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
The tales of frivolous lawsuits have been debunked repeatedly.
For further information, I suggest Really Long Link
Now about the peanut butter lawsuit by an inmate, something addressed in the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Do prisoners often file suits that, to the non-confined person, appear silly and frivolous? Perhaps but one must consider the world of the inmate.
An inmate lives in an artificial and limited world. What appears to be unimportant and trivial to someone possessed of an almost infinite of choices becomes very important to one who is confined.
In any event the story of the inmate and the peanut butter is many years old and has been addressed by legislation, making it more difficult for an inmate to bring suit. That is a mixed blessing because sometimes litigation is the only way to correct a problem. An exhaustive study of the PLRA and inmate petitions is published in the St. John’s Law Review is well written and presented. Really Long Link
It would not be in society’s interest to forbid all inmate petitions.
As Robert Kennedy stated,
"If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in his prison cell . . . to write a letter to the Supreme Court . . . the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter, the Court did look into his case . . . and the whole course of American legal history has been changed."
On June 3, 1961, someone broke into the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Some beer and wine were stolen. The cigarette machine and jukebox were smashed and money was missing. A witness said he saw Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom early that morning. The police found Gideon and arrested him. He had a lot of change in his pockets and was carrying a bottle of wine. They charged him with breaking and entering. When Gideon was brought to trial, he asked for a court appointed attorney. This request was denied under the then Florida law. Ultimately, Gideon’s hand written letter/petition to the Supreme Court resulted in the requirement that anyone facing confinement was entitled to counsel.
So, not all inmate lawsuits are frivolous and silly; one should not just dismiss the concept without thought.
Just as one ought not accept non-job related discrimination. Period
I had been determined to ignore the Wicked Witch of the West, but this most recent bit of silliness requires addressing.
The proposed Federal law is known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA and has passed the House of Representatives on November 7, 2007 by a 235-184 margin. Whether it will be approved by the Senate is, of course, unknown; it should be.
First, the proposed expansion of the Federal non-discrimination rules, expressly does not apply to any business having fewer than 15 employees nor does it apply to any tax-exempt religious organization. So, the WWW has her undies in a wad over a law, that by its terms, does not apply to her. faith
As to the merits of not allowing employment decisions dependent on one’s race faith or sexual orientation, 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in both public and private jobs: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. In Oregon, while no state law has been passed to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment, at least one court case found that sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited under the state's constitution. In addition, seven states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
Moreover, a vast number of local governments have incorporated sexual orientation into their non-discrimination laws.
Want to know something? The world hasn’t come to an end.
A comment brought some non-hysterical thoughts:
The law does not make it legally required for you to hire homosexuals, what it does however is ensure you do not use sexual persuasion as a means to not employ someone.
If you don't hire a homosexual because he is not qualified for the job then he can't successfully sue you on grounds of discrimination. If you however choose not to hire a homosexual who is more than qualified (especially when put up against other candidates) then you will probably be successfully sued.
The only time you could feasibly even be sued for this discrimination is if you openly ask 'are you gay?' in a job that has nothing to do with sexual persuasion. If you do ask such a question then you give the person reason to suspect you're discriminating against him or her based on sexual persuasion.
But if what you say is true, and you have never asked an employee about sexual persuasion then you're more or less in the clear. Such laws already exist to protect people of different race and extending it to include sexual persuasion is only natural.
WWW’s response was that she could be sued. When it was pointed out that such a suit (if without merit) would cost the plaintiff, we fell into the “frivolous lawsuit” argument which serves to demean lawyers and liberals – a double header, as it were.
If you think that silly, frivolous lawsuits don't happen and get nowhere, remember the lady who spilled hot coffee in her lap and sued McDonalds? How about the prison inmate who sued because he didn't like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Some people have plenty of greed and too much time on their hands.
It happens that I am familiar with these cases, so beloved by those who have an ax to grind. Let’s take the McDonald’s case first.
For a full exposition of this case, one should check out Really Long Link
In this case a 79 year old grandmother, Stella Liebeck. was burned when 180° coffee spilled on her. Her injuries were substantial, third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Was serving the coffee at that temperature dangerous? Was McDonalds aware of the danger? Expert testimony at trial established that other servers of coffee did so at 135°, which would cause no serious injury if spilled. Finally, during discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck’s. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
The tales of frivolous lawsuits have been debunked repeatedly.
For further information, I suggest Really Long Link
Now about the peanut butter lawsuit by an inmate, something addressed in the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Do prisoners often file suits that, to the non-confined person, appear silly and frivolous? Perhaps but one must consider the world of the inmate.
An inmate lives in an artificial and limited world. What appears to be unimportant and trivial to someone possessed of an almost infinite of choices becomes very important to one who is confined.
In any event the story of the inmate and the peanut butter is many years old and has been addressed by legislation, making it more difficult for an inmate to bring suit. That is a mixed blessing because sometimes litigation is the only way to correct a problem. An exhaustive study of the PLRA and inmate petitions is published in the St. John’s Law Review is well written and presented. Really Long Link
It would not be in society’s interest to forbid all inmate petitions.
As Robert Kennedy stated,
"If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in his prison cell . . . to write a letter to the Supreme Court . . . the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter, the Court did look into his case . . . and the whole course of American legal history has been changed."
On June 3, 1961, someone broke into the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Some beer and wine were stolen. The cigarette machine and jukebox were smashed and money was missing. A witness said he saw Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom early that morning. The police found Gideon and arrested him. He had a lot of change in his pockets and was carrying a bottle of wine. They charged him with breaking and entering. When Gideon was brought to trial, he asked for a court appointed attorney. This request was denied under the then Florida law. Ultimately, Gideon’s hand written letter/petition to the Supreme Court resulted in the requirement that anyone facing confinement was entitled to counsel.
So, not all inmate lawsuits are frivolous and silly; one should not just dismiss the concept without thought.
Just as one ought not accept non-job related discrimination. Period
| 91 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jeff Musall
She shouldn't worry, her ilk will still be able to discrimiante, it will just be harder. I once had a boss who directed us to find "a way" not to hire black appliants. I "found a way" to get another job..
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
I feel that this law will cause some employers, because of fear of a lawsuit, to hire a gay person over a more qualified person. Which is equally as wrong.
I think this law will cause more frivolous lawsuits, and cause a heavy burden on employers. There are enough laws on the books already to address the same issues, this law is not needed.
Doesn't Government have enough control over our lives public and private enough is enough? Liberalism is choking the life out of America, what happen to the land of the free.
Don't you think as a owner of a business large or small it makes no difference, that as the owner you should have a right to hire who you want to represent you and you company.
Don't you think that we should have the freedom to chose, or do you think the Government can make better choices for us than we can for ourselves?
Like Affirmative Action if passed this law will do more harm than good, But that is just my opinion.
Comment by Damo
The regular source of beat-ups has lost credibility long ago.
Anti- Discrimination laws have existed in Australia for years with few problems.
The whole purpose of the laws it to take out of the selection criteria anything that irrelevant to how the person can perform their job. People often forget that law goes 2 ways where a homosexual boss cannot sack his srtaight staff.
The only people who have really been hurt have been businesses that once adopted discriminatory hiring practices. An certian groups with secret hand shakes that suddenly found that people no longer needed their help to get a promotion.
I am yet to see a case of any GAY quota for a business. Such a quota would be impossible to prove.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Those who claim that government has enough control also ironically advocate MORE government control. ENDA is not even government control, it's laws that are a great way of exposing the intolerant in our societies.
Wire tapping and torture are amongst the real things the government is using to take away our rights.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
If you are talking to me about hiding my hate for homosexuals, First of all I don't hate anyone. Second I hate what they do, not the person. Just as you (may) may not hate me, but what I stand for.
This law in not necessary it's going to harm more people than it will help, namely employers.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Do you have any backing to your claims?
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I'm sorry but
a) Similar laws to ENDA have been passed to protect discrimination against race and have hardly caused mass lawsuits as you so claim
b) Your 'common sense' does not hold wait, valid facts do however, your 'common sense' is what I call 'bullshit'. I cannot assign a value of credibility to it, are you an expert in such matters? Do you possess any law related degrees? Do you work as an employer for a multibillion dollar corporation and now are genuinely afraid such laws will be used to run you into the ground?
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
I was a victim of that, so I do have first hand knowledge.
Comment by Paul Angelo
I also love people like Lester who claim to be "victims" of affirmative action. What is funny is that they never offer any valid proof that they were victimized other than stating that some black dude, or whatever, beat them out for some job of college admission that in their own opinion they deserved.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
All affirmation actions is a feel good way of trying to make up for something this generation never had any part in any way. Get over it and move on as I did.
If you want of clean up racism, and discrimination lets do it on both sides. Don't you think this one sided blame game is getting a little old?
Comment by Paul Angelo
And to answer your question--NO--I don't think there are very many people who were significantly more experienced than minorities, who have been discriminated against. That isn't how it works, and I have never seen any compelling arguments from your side other than some abstract ones to support this claim.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
There was plenty of white people that got killed setting the slaves free, but I never hear anyone saying thank you, or mourning over them.
Just about every race has had it's discrimination, At what point are we willing to let the wounds heal, and come together as a nation.
Never it looks like because we keep bringing up the past that none of us alive today had any hand in.
Comment by Paul Angelo
Ya' know, the playbook you have on display in this discussion and your blog is all too common from your ilk, and fast becoming a giant cliche--do you honestly believe the things you say, or do you just pick them off a list of idiotic right-wing talking points?
Comment by Paul Angelo
But anyway, if you are talking about the Union soldiers--they weren't necessarily fighting for the freeing of slaves, or even if they were, the vast majority had no interest in equal rights for blacks. besides, slavery was only one of few reasons for the Civil War, and freeing slaves wasn't necessarily the primary purpose. It was about the larger goal of preserving the union.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Yes I am a christian conservative, and I do believe what I say, and I am not ashamed of it either.
The war was about slavery, and it was fought because the south wanted to succeed for the Union. If it had not been for that fact there would have been no war.
Let me say this, and I will not post anymore comments on this subject.
As long as we keep thinking White America, Black America, and if we keep thinking straight, or gay America we will never have equality. We don't need more laws, just a willingness to do the rigtht thing.
Comment by Paul Angelo
But sorry, slavery was only one of many reasons the southern states wanted to secede, but that is really beside the point anyway--learn some history and how to spell, by the way.
So now you conservatives think we don't need laws and should just depend on people doing the "right" thing? I can't keep up with you conservatives sometimes--one minute you love laws and want more, and the next you say we too many laws.
Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are talking about?
Comment by Jeff Musall
i can attest to the fact that you are either "born gay" or not. For if it was a choice, I'd choose to be gay just to piss off the right...lol, But seriously, no mater how much science tells us otherwise, the right is determined to demonize homosexuality and to portray it as sin, for to do otherwise would make them ask why their god would incorporate it into their being.