|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
madoka
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dodge7
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like to think of these kinds of frivolous lawsuits as a form of inadvertent socialism. Should she get her cool million, she's likely to have it pumped back into the economy within a year. She's a modern day Robin Hood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I have not seen a compelling argument in opposition to her suit yet. None of these considerations offered would defeat her suit on summary judgment grounds. Meanwhile, CVS has done absolutely nothing for her. She should sue, let loose the dogs of discovery, and watch them squirm. |
But she was neither discriminated nor segregated. She received the exact same service as any other person visiting CVS.
One could say that she felt emotionally discriminated against because an employee notified her of her Asian heritage in an inappropriate manner, but it would seem that the reply from the employer to council and train the employee is sufficient.
The compelling argument against her suit is not that it fails to fit the guidelines of the Civil Rights Act (though it can only do so in the stretching of the term "discrimination") but rather that it is a natural occurrence of what happens in a democratic society. Should CVS be held accountable? Only so far as they fail to rectify the situation, which it seems they are. The law suit is thereby viewed as superfluous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People just want to get some free money.
I'd fire the employee, and lock the customer up for a month for attempting to milk the system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I have not seen a compelling argument in opposition to her suit yet. None of these considerations offered would defeat her suit on summary judgment grounds. Meanwhile, CVS has done absolutely nothing for her. She should sue, let loose the dogs of discovery, and watch them squirm. |
But she was neither discriminated nor segregated. She received the exact same service as any other person visiting CVS. |
So the other people who visited CVS received a racial slur on their receipt instead of their actual name? Come on.
That is discrimination. The real question is, how much should damages be calculated at? Answer: at least $1 (plus attorney's fees and costs under the statute).
| Quote: |
| Should CVS be held accountable? Only so far as they fail to rectify the situation, which it seems they are. The law suit is thereby viewed as superfluous. |
CVS ratified the employee's conduct when it failed to fire him/her. Anyway, that is what discovery is for, to find out how CVS rectified or failed to rectify the situation. Unless she files suit, she does not have an opportunity to discover these important facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
So the other people who visited CVS received a racial slur on their receipt instead of their actual name? Come on. |
But that is not what the CRA, as I read it, defines discrimination. The employee discriminated her in the sense he/she were able to discern she was of Asian heritage, but still gave her the same service as any other. I'm not condoning what the employee did, and thinks he/she should be reprimanded, but I don't think suing is the way to go about it.
| Kuros wrote: |
CVS ratified the employee's conduct when it failed to fire him/her. Anyway, that is what discovery is for, to find out how CVS rectified or failed to rectify the situation. Unless she files suit, she does not have an opportunity to discover these important facts. |
It could be that CVS has a step policy regarding employees receiving customer complaints. First time retraining, second time termination. If this were the first warning and CVS fired the employee, he/she would then have grounds to sue for wrongful termination.
I really understand your position; especially the mention of discovery as grounds to view the response by CVS. However, viewing it on a larger scale, I cannot support such a frivolous lawsuit that will most likely boil down to the application/usage of word(s) by one party as opposed to another. But, I guess that's more or less the essence of law, and why I changed my career path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
optik404
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
So the other people who visited CVS received a racial slur on their receipt instead of their actual name? Come on. |
But that is not what the CRA, as I read it, defines discrimination. The employee discriminated her in the sense he/she were able to discern she was of Asian heritage, but still gave her the same service as any other. I'm not condoning what the employee did, and thinks he/she should be reprimanded, but I don't think suing is the way to go about it.
| Kuros wrote: |
CVS ratified the employee's conduct when it failed to fire him/her. Anyway, that is what discovery is for, to find out how CVS rectified or failed to rectify the situation. Unless she files suit, she does not have an opportunity to discover these important facts. |
It could be that CVS has a step policy regarding employees receiving customer complaints. First time retraining, second time termination. If this were the first warning and CVS fired the employee, he/she would then have grounds to sue for wrongful termination.
I really understand your position; especially the mention of discovery as grounds to view the response by CVS. However, viewing it on a larger scale, I cannot support such a frivolous lawsuit that will most likely boil down to the application/usage of word(s) by one party as opposed to another. But, I guess that's more or less the essence of law, and why I changed my career path. |
Depends on the state, no? Some states, employers can terminate with no reason given. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="optik404"]
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
It could be that CVS has a step policy regarding employees receiving customer complaints. First time retraining, second time termination. If this were the first warning and CVS fired the employee, he/she would then have grounds to sue for wrongful termination.
Depends on the state, no? Some states, employers can terminate with no reason given. |
It does, which is why I put it as a hypothetical "could be." An employer also has the right to put in to place a system of its own, as the aforementioned hypothetical deals with. I've combed over enough employment manuals and CBAs to know that to be true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the wording of the U.S. Civil Rights Act:
| Quote: |
| All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Here is the wording of the U.S. Civil Rights Act:
| Quote: |
| All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. |
|
Again, I know where you are coming from on your argument, but she paid the same price as anyone else and got the exact same goods and services as anyone else visiting the CVS.
What the employee did was wrong and in poor taste, but I don't think it requires her throwing the CRA at CVS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
People just want to get some free money.
I'd fire the employee, and lock the customer up for a month for attempting to milk the system. |
Inform the Archivist, prepare for excisement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
