Posted on 04/21/2007 5:58:54 AM PDT by NYer
The individual should have complied with the action of his supervisors, continued to do his job without the pictures and filed a formal discrimination complaint with the EEOC.
Instead, he put the picture back up and argued with management.
He has no case what so ever, and should learn this lesson if he hopes to be employed in the future.
This preface should be mandatory in all WorldNetDaily threads.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Wow. I am not even sure how to respond to such an idiotic analogy.
World NUT Daily seems more concerned with selling this or that book, or some other related product.
They lost all credibility with me after the war on terror started. few of their headlines have any truth in them.
In what country did this happen?
Cha Ching
Too strong a statement. Correlation need not equal causation; but it is not that it uniformly DOES NOT equal causation.
Cheers!
Bingo.
We can't have fun in the office with that "born again" loser over there always complaining. Find a way to get rid of him.
>>First Amendment?
I’ve heard public service announcements for the Rutherford
Institute talking about the case of a little boy who was denied permission to pass around gifts/candies
with a message about Easter on them to his classmates.
The court ruled for the school board but I believed it
was appealed to the Supreme Court
details:
>>According to CNS news, a kindergartener, who was prohibited from passing out religious items in class, is challenging a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit against the school policy, calling it religious discrimination.
>>The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights, is representing Dana Walz and her son Daniel. They are waiting for the Supreme Court to take their case.
The institute attorneys, in requesting a review of the case by the Supreme Court, said the school district’s actions and policies discriminate against Daniel’s speech on the basis of its religious viewpoint, constitute hostility toward and denigration of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and violate a New Jersey law against discrimination
more details; am not sure how the case ultimately came out
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=471
>>In April 1998, during the Easter-Passover season, Daniel and his pre-kindergarten classmates attended a holiday party at school. Some children brought in small gifts to hand out during the party. Daniel handed out pencils that stated “Jesus loves the little children.” On seeing the pencils, Daniel’s teacher confiscated them from the children. Daniel’s mother, Dana Walz, who was present in the classroom, immediately brought the matter to the attention of the school’s principal. However, the principal, assistant superintendent and superintendent denied Daniel’s request to distribute the pencils. Walz was then told that Daniel could only hand out pencils outside the classroom. In December 1998, Daniel and his kindergarten classmates had a Christmas-Hanukkah party at school. Before the party, Walz contacted the school’s attorney to obtain permission for Daniel to distribute candy canes with the story “The Candy Maker’s Witness” attached to them. She was informed that Daniel could do so only outside the classroom. However, Daniel’s classmates were permitted to hand out non-religious gifts during the party.
Thanks for your astute post, the one that really brought clarity to this issue
Most companies do not want to fire someone. It takes time and a lot of money to hire and then train a new employee, then months more before he or she is productive enough to start really contributing in a way that helps the company’s bottom line. They usually cut employees a lot of slack because they don’t want to deal with EEOC complaints and tie their attorneys up. So when someone gets fired and claims discrimination, it’s possible that management was stupid but it’s also possible that the employee screwed up.
We had a guy in our office who was hired to work at a desk right by the entrance. He started putting up pictures of naked women at his desk. There were photos, cartoons cut from Playboy, etc. He was told to take the pictures down and he started with a lot of attitude. The same attitude affected his work. When he was fired he screamed discrimination on grounds that he was a black man. But it was the attitude that got him fired, not the pictures and not his race or sex.
This is typical of the problem. If the employee is a team player and shows her really wants to be working for the company and do his best, he’s not going to argue. When he argues he’s showing that he’s not a team player, he’s a management headache.
Sound familiar?
Atheist are as passionate about their beliefs just like Christians, Islamist, Orthodox Jews etc... are.
“If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.”
-—G. K. Chesterton
;-o)
Time for a lawsuit.
The up side to this story is that when he files a lawsuit against Barclays, he will win. Plaintiffs always win these cases, either on summary judgment, at trial or on appeal if the trial court rules for the company. In the end, he will be much better off financially.
I think it’s worse to be surrounded by hypocrites who look at you and imagine that you see right through them. The hypocrites would be the pseudo-religious folks who see their reality every time they look at you. The non-religious are often much easier to get along with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.