Pennsylvania borough set to repeal LGBT protections 4 months after passing them

[7thKeeper]

If it for example says " no person shall" must every possible person be named?

Im left handed Asian lesbian.
But ostensibly a person.

Well, there is a flaw in that arguement. We just need to prove that you are not a person.
And because you are a left handed Asian lesbian, you aren't a person because of those traits. As long as enough people go with it, and perhaps even pass a law classifying what a person is, the "no person" part doesn't apply to you. Humans are quite good at this sort of stuff. So unfortunately, specifity is required with laws.

 

[Estrid]

Well, there is a flaw in that arguement. We just need to prove that you are not a person.
And because you are a left handed Asian lesbian, you aren't a person because of those traits. As long as enough people go with it, and perhaps even pass a law classifying what a person is, the "no person" part doesn't apply to you. Humans are quite good at this sort of stuff. So unfortunately, specifity is required with laws.

I suppose.
I was not always treated well in the USA even without ever
revealing my " orientation".
And in the day-
Asian women were subject to much more stringent
requirements for immigration to the US than men were and it was illegal
to marry a ( white) person.

 

[atpollard]

Overview of Employment and Anti-Discrimination Laws
"Almost every employee is subject to protections under a number of federal employment and anti-discrimination laws. Federal employment laws apply to workers with disabilities and those caring for sick family members. Anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination in employment for protected classes."

Protected Class
protected class n
: a group of people intended by a legislature to benefit from the protection of a statute

"The Pregnancy Discrimination Act: This amendment to Title VII expands the protections regarding “sex” to include prohibiting sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth and/or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth."

Does the "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act" provide legal rights and protections to pregnant women that are not enjoyed by other citizens? If a man leaves his job for 6 months will they be obligated to hold it for him until his unwed sister gives birth?

[Anti-Discrimination Laws, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, involve shifting the burden of proof in a legal dispute to favor members of a protected class ... but what do I know about anything. ]

 

[trunks2k]

[Anti-Discrimination Laws, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, involve shifting the burden of proof in a legal dispute to favor members of a protected class ... but what do I know about anything. ]

We're ALL members of protected classes. You can't discriminate against a person for simply being pregnant, just like you can't discriminate against a person for, well, NOT being pregnant.

That men generally don't need those protections is neither here nor there, nor does it have anything to do with shifting burden of proof. Nor does this have anything to do with leaving a job for 6 months. Leaving a job for up to 12 weeks and having it be held is covered under FMLA (and yes, fathers can use FMLA to take leave to care for a newborn); not anti-discrimination laws.

 

[atpollard]

We're ALL members of protected classes. You can't discriminate against a person for simply being pregnant, just like you can't discriminate against a person for, well, NOT being pregnant.

I terminate a hypothetical employee because "their" 26 complaints to HR in 5 weeks is disruptive to the productivity and cohesion of the work team in the office. An investigation into the complaints unveils that it is a pattern of "passive-aggressive" behavior to garner special treatment and punish those they disagree with. Our psychological consultant suspects some mental illness as the root cause, but the employee refuses to seek treatment.

When I am in court, and I will unquestionably land in court over this termination of employment, spending company resources to defend a just termination that our legal team is confident we will prevail on ... the fact is that as an employer, I will be required to prove that "they" were not terminated because "they" are non-binary gender and "they" were not terminated because they are African American and "they" were not terminated because they were born female. That is because "Gender" and "Race" and "Sex" all fall into one of the "protected classes" under the law.

If I had fired an '[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]' that was white, male and cisgender ... would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "white"? Would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "male"? Would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "cisgender"?

Does the law really apply equally to all, or do the protections grant enhanced rights to some?

I get it.
You all disagree.
Fine.

 

[Arcangl86]

I terminate a hypothetical employee because "their" 26 complaints to HR in 5 weeks is disruptive to the productivity and cohesion of the work team in the office. An investigation into the complaints unveils that it is a pattern of "passive-aggressive" behavior to garner special treatment and punish those they disagree with. Our psychological consultant suspects some mental illness as the root cause, but the employee refuses to seek treatment.

When I am in court, and I will unquestionably land in court over this termination of employment, spending company resources to defend a just termination that our legal team is confident we will prevail on ... the fact is that as an employer, I will be required to prove that "they" were not terminated because "they" are non-binary gender and "they" were not terminated because they are African American and "they" were not terminated because they were born female. That is because "Gender" and "Race" and "Sex" all fall into one of the "protected classes" under the law.

If I had fired an '[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]' that was white, male and cisgender ... would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "white"? Would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "male"? Would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "cisgender"?

Does the law really apply equally to all, or do the protections grant enhanced rights to some?

I get it.
You all disagree.
Fine.

Jury awards $10M to former exec who said he was fired because he is white male

Here's a case of somebody successfully suing his former employer for firing him because he was a white male. So yes, protected classes apply to the majority as much as minorities.

 

[Bradskii]

Overview of Employment and Anti-Discrimination Laws
"Almost every employee is subject to protections under a number of federal employment and anti-discrimination laws. Federal employment laws apply to workers with disabilities and those caring for sick family members. Anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination in employment for protected classes."

Protected Class
protected class n
: a group of people intended by a legislature to benefit from the protection of a statute

"The Pregnancy Discrimination Act: This amendment to Title VII expands the protections regarding “sex” to include prohibiting sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth and/or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth."

Does the "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act" provide legal rights and protections to pregnant women that are not enjoyed by other citizens?

Obviously. Was that meant to make some sort of point?

That you can't discriminate against pregnant women only applies to (I can't believe I'm writing this) pregnant women. That you can't hire children to work for you only applies to children. That you can't refuse to hire someone because of a specific disability only applies to those with that disability.

 

[Bradskii]

I terminate a hypothetical employee because "their" 26 complaints to HR in 5 weeks is disruptive to the productivity and cohesion of the work team in the office. An investigation into the complaints unveils that it is a pattern of "passive-aggressive" behavior to garner special treatment and punish those they disagree with. Our psychological consultant suspects some mental illness as the root cause, but the employee refuses to seek treatment.

When I am in court, and I will unquestionably land in court over this termination of employment, spending company resources to defend a just termination that our legal team is confident we will prevail on ... the fact is that as an employer, I will be required to prove that "they" were not terminated because "they" are non-binary gender and "they" were not terminated because they are African American and "they" were not terminated because they were born female. That is because "Gender" and "Race" and "Sex" all fall into one of the "protected classes" under the law.

That's right. We have laws that protect you from discriminating against someone because of their gender or ethnic background. People do discriminate on those basis, so you'll be questioned to make sure you're not one of those people.

I hope you kept good records.

 

[SilverBear]

Overview of Employment and Anti-Discrimination Laws
"Almost every employee is subject to protections under a number of federal employment and anti-discrimination laws. Federal employment laws apply to workers with disabilities and those caring for sick family members. Anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination in employment for protected classes."

Protected Class
protected class n
: a group of people intended by a legislature to benefit from the protection of a statute

"The Pregnancy Discrimination Act: This amendment to Title VII expands the protections regarding “sex” to include prohibiting sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth and/or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth."

Does the "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act" provide legal rights and protections to pregnant women that are not enjoyed by other citizens? If a man leaves his job for 6 months will they be obligated to hold it for him until his unwed sister gives birth?

[Anti-Discrimination Laws, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, involve shifting the burden of proof in a legal dispute to favor members of a protected class ... but what do I know about anything. ]

If a woman leaves her job for 6 months will they be obligated to hold it for her until her unwed sister gives birth?

 

[SilverBear]

I terminate a hypothetical employee because "their" 26 complaints to HR in 5 weeks is disruptive to the productivity and cohesion of the work team in the office. An investigation into the complaints unveils that it is a pattern of "passive-aggressive" behavior to garner special treatment and punish those they disagree with.

did the investigation find this pattern about the employee or the employer?

Our psychological consultant suspects some mental illness as the root cause, but the employee refuses to seek treatment.

get a new consultant. A competent mental health professional will not diagnoses an issue like that without actually meeting the person

When I am in court, and I will unquestionably land in court over this termination of employment, spending company resources to defend a just termination that our legal team is confident we will prevail on ... the fact is that as an employer, I will be required to prove that "they" were not terminated because "they" are non-binary gender and "they" were not terminated because they are African American and "they" were not terminated because they were born female. That is because "Gender" and "Race" and "Sex" all fall into one of the "protected classes" under the law.

was the employee fired for any of these reasons? if not then then you need to remember that the burden of proof falls to them

If I had fired an '[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]' that was white, male and cisgender ... would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "white"? Would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "male"? Would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "cisgender"?

since it is unlikely that you would be doing any of these for anyone else it would seem doubtful that you would be.

Does the law really apply equally to all, or do the protections grant enhanced rights to some?

I get it.
You all disagree.
Fine.

the point is that the law does not apply equally to members of the LGBT community

 

[SimplyMe]

I terminate a hypothetical employee because "their" 26 complaints to HR in 5 weeks is disruptive to the productivity and cohesion of the work team in the office. An investigation into the complaints unveils that it is a pattern of "passive-aggressive" behavior to garner special treatment and punish those they disagree with. Our psychological consultant suspects some mental illness as the root cause, but the employee refuses to seek treatment.

When I am in court, and I will unquestionably land in court over this termination of employment, spending company resources to defend a just termination that our legal team is confident we will prevail on ... the fact is that as an employer, I will be required to prove that "they" were not terminated because "they" are non-binary gender and "they" were not terminated because they are African American and "they" were not terminated because they were born female. That is because "Gender" and "Race" and "Sex" all fall into one of the "protected classes" under the law.

If I had fired an '[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]' that was white, male and cisgender ... would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "white"? Would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "male"? Would I really be standing in court asked to defend that I did not terminate his employment because he was "cisgender"?

Does the law really apply equally to all, or do the protections grant enhanced rights to some?

I get it.
You all disagree.
Fine.

If you fire a person because of "their 26 complaints to HR in 5 weeks" (not sure why "their" was in quotes) then that would likely be scrutinized, regardless if it is a gay, Black, disabled Muslim or if they are a straight, White, Christian Protestant in good health -- EEOC commissions typically view firing a person because of complaints as a "red flag."

Granted, if you keep proper records and can show that the complaints had no merits, and you did fire the person for being disruptive in the workplace (and not for making complaints), the firing will be found to be justified -- even if it is the gay, Black, disabled Muslim making the claim.

OTOH, if the complainant can show other people, like the complainant, have suffered similar issues and been fired after making complaints then they will find your firm at fault -- even if it is the straight, White, Christian.

 

[Estrid]

If you fire a person because of "their 26 complaints to HR in 5 weeks" (not sure why "their" was in quotes) then that would likely be scrutinized, regardless if it is a gay, Black, disabled Muslim or if they are a straight, White, Christian Protestant in good health -- EEOC commissions typically view firing a person because of complaints as a "red flag."

Granted, if you keep proper records and can show that the complaints had no merits, and you did fire the person for being disruptive in the workplace (and not for making complaints), the firing will be found to be justified -- even if it is the gay, Black, disabled Muslim making the claim.

OTOH, if the complainant can show other people, like the complainant, have suffered similar issues and been fired after making complaints then they will find your firm at fault -- even if it is the straight, White, Christian.

While in the USA, I occasionally encountered racism.
Another Asian girl my age was constantly complaining
of racist offences.
I consider that behaviour just as bad as racism.

 

[SimplyMe]

While in the USA, I occasionally encountered racism.
Another Asian girl my age was constantly complaining
of racist offences.
I consider that behaviour just as bad as racism.

I'm not quite sure how that relates to my post? At the same time, I'm sorry to hear you experienced racism on your visit.

 

[Estrid]

I'm not quite sure how that relates to my post? At the same time, I'm sorry to hear you experienced racism on your visit.

Giving an example of why i would be dubious of the
validity of so many complaints.

As for me encountering racism in the USA.?
I think America is one of the least racist nations, and, working
very hard to correct it