Actually, it's comparing religion to race.SEREMAKER wrote:
now you're grasping for straws, comparing an article of clothing to race ....... good one
No, actually.SEREMAKER wrote:
showing cleavage ---- ever seen any hooter waiters
no its still the article of clothing - the religion just happens to be tagging alongZombieVampire! wrote:
Actually, it's comparing religion to race.SEREMAKER wrote:
now you're grasping for straws, comparing an article of clothing to race ....... good oneNo, actually.SEREMAKER wrote:
showing cleavage ---- ever seen any hooter waiters
Religion isn't covered by discrimination laws the same way as race. For example, you can't explicitly discriminate against someone of a particular religion, but you can mandate certain conditions that conflict with a religious custom. So basically, this same employer could refuse to hire this Muslim woman because of her noncompliance with company policy without it being a religious issue even though the custom of the scarf is involved.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Actually, it's comparing religion to race.SEREMAKER wrote:
now you're grasping for straws, comparing an article of clothing to race ....... good one
You might find that weird or maybe hypocritical, but I personally prefer giving employers leniency. I know I wouldn't have hired this woman if I felt the scarf would get in the way.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368143,00.html
" TAMPA, Fla. — A University of South Florida student says Disney officials told him he didn't fit the "Disney look" when he applied for a job.
Now, 24-year-old Sukhbir Channa is suing Disney World. He claims the company discriminated against him because of his turban and uncut hair, which his Sikh religion requires.
He was applying to be a trumpet player during the 2006 holiday season.
A Disney spokeswoman says they have no record of Channa applying for the job then and that the company does not discriminate against anyone.
The suit was filed in Tampa on Monday where the university is located and where the hiring process took place. He's seeking $1 million in punitive damages. "
" TAMPA, Fla. — A University of South Florida student says Disney officials told him he didn't fit the "Disney look" when he applied for a job.
Now, 24-year-old Sukhbir Channa is suing Disney World. He claims the company discriminated against him because of his turban and uncut hair, which his Sikh religion requires.
He was applying to be a trumpet player during the 2006 holiday season.
A Disney spokeswoman says they have no record of Channa applying for the job then and that the company does not discriminate against anyone.
The suit was filed in Tampa on Monday where the university is located and where the hiring process took place. He's seeking $1 million in punitive damages. "
Last edited by SEREMAKER (2008-06-18 21:23:31)
I would have hired a hitman.SEREMAKER wrote:
Heres one from London
all you've got to do is look for cheats on HitmanThe#1Spot wrote:
I would have hired a hitman.SEREMAKER wrote:
Heres one from London
That Sikh bastard... j/kSEREMAKER wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368143,00.html
" TAMPA, Fla. — A University of South Florida student says Disney officials told him he didn't fit the "Disney look" when he applied for a job.
Now, 24-year-old Sukhbir Channa is suing Disney World. He claims the company discriminated against him because of his turban and uncut hair, which his Sikh religion requires.
He was applying to be a trumpet player during the 2006 holiday season.
A Disney spokeswoman says they have no record of Channa applying for the job then and that the company does not discriminate against anyone.
The suit was filed in Tampa on Monday where the university is located and where the hiring process took place. He's seeking $1 million in punitive damages. "
Clearly you know more about UK law than a UK court. I bow to your superior knowledge.Turquoise wrote:
Religion isn't covered by discrimination laws the same way as race. For example, you can't explicitly discriminate against someone of a particular religion, but you can mandate certain conditions that conflict with a religious custom. So basically, this same employer could refuse to hire this Muslim woman because of her noncompliance with company policy without it being a religious issue even though the custom of the scarf is involved.
You might find that weird or maybe hypocritical, but I personally prefer giving employers leniency. I know I wouldn't have hired this woman if I felt the scarf would get in the way.
It only becomes that if she can demonstrate in court a need for the applicant to remove the garment: she could not.SEREMAKER wrote:
no its still the article of clothing - the religion just happens to be tagging alongZombieVampire! wrote:
Actually, it's comparing religion to race.SEREMAKER wrote:
now you're grasping for straws, comparing an article of clothing to race ....... good oneNo, actually.SEREMAKER wrote:
showing cleavage ---- ever seen any hooter waiters
No, I was explaining American law. I had mentioned that the suit wouldn't go anywhere here, but that I didn't know much about U.K. law. I would assume that it's different there.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Clearly you know more about UK law than a UK court. I bow to your superior knowledge.Turquoise wrote:
Religion isn't covered by discrimination laws the same way as race. For example, you can't explicitly discriminate against someone of a particular religion, but you can mandate certain conditions that conflict with a religious custom. So basically, this same employer could refuse to hire this Muslim woman because of her noncompliance with company policy without it being a religious issue even though the custom of the scarf is involved.
You might find that weird or maybe hypocritical, but I personally prefer giving employers leniency. I know I wouldn't have hired this woman if I felt the scarf would get in the way.
Certainly, but if you go back to your original statement it's false: you can't hire or fire people as you please.
You are clearly being purposefully obtuse. There can't be any other explanation.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Certainly, but if you go back to your original statement it's false: you can't hire or fire people as you please.
Imo, the main reason why the American judicial system is incorrect and creates a sue happy society is the fact that a lawyer can become really rich by winning a lawsuit.
The first problem with the American judicial system is the fact that it is merely a jury based system, meaning that even the smallest courts have a jury which means a verdict is the result of non-legal persons, most of the time based on their guts or their feelings instead of the law, which creates the possibility to receive extensive damages.
The second problem is the fact that the American judicial system uses punitive damages, which means parties – mostly companies - that are claimed to be liable, have to pay a considerable amount of money in excess of the real substantial damage, just to make sure they never do it again. The infamous lady with the hot coffee in her lap is a perfect example of this kind of damages.
The third problem in the American judicial system is the fact that an American lawyer is permitted to work at a ‘no cure no pay’ fee system, which means he doesn’t get paid when he looses the trial, but he takes up to 30+ % if he wins. The result of this is that he demands enormous remunerations, in the hope he can have a personal benefit.
The fourth problem may be the class action system, although I’m undecided on that topic.
The first problem with the American judicial system is the fact that it is merely a jury based system, meaning that even the smallest courts have a jury which means a verdict is the result of non-legal persons, most of the time based on their guts or their feelings instead of the law, which creates the possibility to receive extensive damages.
The second problem is the fact that the American judicial system uses punitive damages, which means parties – mostly companies - that are claimed to be liable, have to pay a considerable amount of money in excess of the real substantial damage, just to make sure they never do it again. The infamous lady with the hot coffee in her lap is a perfect example of this kind of damages.
The third problem in the American judicial system is the fact that an American lawyer is permitted to work at a ‘no cure no pay’ fee system, which means he doesn’t get paid when he looses the trial, but he takes up to 30+ % if he wins. The result of this is that he demands enormous remunerations, in the hope he can have a personal benefit.
The fourth problem may be the class action system, although I’m undecided on that topic.
How am I being obtuse?Vax wrote:
You are clearly being purposefully obtuse. There can't be any other explanation.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Certainly, but if you go back to your original statement it's false: you can't hire or fire people as you please.
He knows little about UK law (or, less than the court, at least) and even under US law there are restrictions to hiring and firing.
She might be making up for the court's time in...other...ways.Kmarion wrote:
Hopefully she will have to pay the court cost when it gets tossed out.
Because so many seem to have the idea whatever happens, it has to be someone elses fault - and they have to pay.Why do Americans (this is a generalization) sue so hard?
And they have a grossly exaggerated idea of hurt feelings.
Also Americans have a very selfish and one sided view of what is fair.
Plus they're terrible losers. Try mentioning Vietnam
All the above are also generalisations, I'm sure there is an American somewhere I could be friends with.
If you mean waitresses - damn right I have.ever seen any hooter waiters
Oh sh!t, 'waitress' = gender stereotyping. I'll get my chequebook
Fuck Israel
Nothing tops that lady who sued McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself.
The really sad thing is she won/got money out of it.HurricaИe wrote:
Nothing tops that lady who sued McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Just wait till someone sues someone else for cutting them off.
Well, to say for any reason was too broad of a term, but there are states in the US, mine included, that are what is termed "At Will" states. So while you cannot fire people for race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, and maybe one or two other things, an employer can in fact terminate an employee without needing to supply a cause.ZombieVampire! wrote:
How am I being obtuse?Vax wrote:
You are clearly being purposefully obtuse. There can't be any other explanation.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Certainly, but if you go back to your original statement it's false: you can't hire or fire people as you please.
He knows little about UK law (or, less than the court, at least) and even under US law there are restrictions to hiring and firing.
in my opinion the possibility of being able to sue is a freedom that we should be garantied and it makes total sense in some cases that you want money back (lets say that another persons dog killed your dog i would defiantly want money or some kind of damage pay).
of course the sue system can be abused and it is, but i think that it's a very important part of freedom and our liberty and rights, of course it is abused but that should not ruin it for everybody else and result in taking away our liberties.
of course the sue system can be abused and it is, but i think that it's a very important part of freedom and our liberty and rights, of course it is abused but that should not ruin it for everybody else and result in taking away our liberties.
I don't think anyone is saying that it should go away, but rather a process of screen lawsuits for those that have no basis and is just some one looking to make a quick score.motherdear wrote:
in my opinion the possibility of being able to sue is a freedom that we should be garantied and it makes total sense in some cases that you want money back (lets say that another persons dog killed your dog i would defiantly want money or some kind of damage pay).
of course the sue system can be abused and it is, but i think that it's a very important part of freedom and our liberty and rights, of course it is abused but that should not ruin it for everybody else and result in taking away our liberties.
The one thing I would like to add to this is that corporate America is part of the problem, and maybe they became this way as a result of ridiculous judgments, but they aren't helping the issue.
What I mean by that is simply this. When some one sues a company, they often settle just to make the problem go away, even if they were in no way shape, or form, responsible for any damages to that person. This increases the likelihood of people abusing the system because they know companies are often willing to do this just to avoid going to court.
What I mean by that is simply this. When some one sues a company, they often settle just to make the problem go away, even if they were in no way shape, or form, responsible for any damages to that person. This increases the likelihood of people abusing the system because they know companies are often willing to do this just to avoid going to court.
That's the modern world I suppose, it's getting a little like that everywhere else too. I remember a day when two guys could have a disagreement and sort it out with a good old fashioned fight, nowadays that would result in a huge lawsuit.
Not as good as the gambler who sued the bookmaker after he lost loads of money.SEREMAKER wrote:
Heres one from London
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7243656.stm
It's not quite as stupid a case as I make out though. But I still think he's an idiot.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-06-19 12:30:35)
Agent's right, Bubs. I was wrong in my phrasing, but NC is also an "at will" state. So, for all practical purposes, you can fire and hire as you please.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Well, to say for any reason was too broad of a term, but there are states in the US, mine included, that are what is termed "At Will" states. So while you cannot fire people for race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, and maybe one or two other things, an employer can in fact terminate an employee without needing to supply a cause.ZombieVampire! wrote:
How am I being obtuse?Vax wrote:
You are clearly being purposefully obtuse. There can't be any other explanation.
He knows little about UK law (or, less than the court, at least) and even under US law there are restrictions to hiring and firing.
Of course, if you're not careful, you can still get sued.