# An interesting racial discrimination suit **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2015, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414 "2015-02-11T19:51:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/61 "2015-02-12T16:38:21Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Under many circumstances, I’d fire a man for consistently walking into the woman’s restroom but not fire a woman for doing the same. I’d similarly fire Joe for patting Larry’s butt every day, but I wouldn’t fire Larry for patting Larry’s butt every day. > > I don’t know that the law ought to treat these things analogously to race, but socially they’re similar. It’s far less offensive to use an epithet that applies to your group than for someone outside of your group to use it. Sure, you can make an argument going that way but there is an argument going the other way too. Noone is saying that there is no way to view this where the firing was justified. We are saying that there is a way to view this where the firing was unjustified. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/62 "2015-02-12T16:40:16Z")
I would have to find an awfully naive jury to get them to buy “can we finally use the n-word?” as a mere inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/63 "2015-02-12T16:47:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you’re going to fire a white guy for doing something that you wouldn’t fire a black guy for doing, then he’s got a point doesn’t he? It’s not clear that he was fired for something (using a racial slur in an inappropriate and offensive manner) that a black guy wouldn’t be fired for. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/64 "2015-02-12T16:55:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The context is provided by the subsequent HR meeting: > > "Burlington was summoned to speak with the station’s Department of Human Resources, Ameena Ali, who is black, and was asked to give his side of the story. Burlington repeated the conversation from the staff meeting, including the epithet he had used. > > “Tom, you’re still saying the word; why are you doing that?” Ali responded, according to court papers. This brought the meeting to an immediate end, and Burlington was suspended." > It _was_ just the “saying the word” that was the crime. Not any context in which it was used. As much as I agree with **LHoD** ’s take on this story, I have to admit, when I read this part, my first thought was the stoning scene in _Life of Brian_. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/65 "2015-02-12T17:03:47Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > One day we’ll have a “-word” for every letter of the alphabet, and then how will we euphemize our epithets? Use two letters. The “sh-word,” the “fu-word.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/66 "2015-02-12T17:13:51Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you’re going to fire a white guy for doing something that you wouldn’t fire a black guy for doing, then he’s got a point doesn’t he? White people are not a protected class. They don’t have to endure racial harassment that is severe or pervasive. A TV anchor can be fired without cause, as long as the employment action isn’t a violation of law or public policy. I can, for example, fire my assistant for wearing a red shirt, and allow my other assistant to wear red shirts every day. Now, if the one I fired was black, she could certainly allege that the red shirt was a mere pretense for my racial hostility to her, and she would back that up by pointing out that white people don’t get fired for wearing red shirts. However, if I fired my white assistant for wearing a red shirt, she’d be out of luck, even if I let other white employees (or even black employees) wear red shirts. People without contracts can be fired pretty easily. I don’t see a need for the station to have to defend itself here. They wanted this guy gone, for whatever reason. If they believed a significant portion of their advertisers or viewers would want them to take this action, even if their wrong, there is no legal basis for a lawsuit. IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/67 "2015-02-12T17:14:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Sure, you can make an argument going that way but there is an argument going the other way too. Noone is saying that there is no way to view this where the firing was justified. We are saying that there is a way to view this where the firing was unjustified. To repeat myself, the firing doesn’t have to be “justified.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/68 "2015-02-12T17:17:49Z")
I’m pretty sure “white people” are a protected class. No one can be fired for being white, according to the law. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/69 "2015-02-12T17:17:52Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > White people are not a protected class. Neither are black people. _Race_ is a protected class, and that protection applies to everyone regardless of their skin color. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/70 "2015-02-12T18:25:13Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > White people are not a protected class. They don’t have to endure racial harassment that is severe or pervasive. Uh no, that’s not how anti-discrimination laws work. It’s just as illegal to fire people for being white as it is to fire people for being black. Obviously the latter is more common than the former, but that doesn’t mean the former is legally permissible, with few exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/71 "2015-02-12T18:29:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > From the story, he wasn’t fired for being white – he was fired for saying n----- in a context that his superiors deemed inappropriate. But that’s the point. If a black person says nigger and keeps their job and a white person says nigger under similar circumstances and is fired, then no matter how they want to skirt around the issue he was fired for being white. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/72 "2015-02-12T18:36:36Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > But that’s the point. If a black person says nigger and keeps their job and a white person says nigger under similar circumstances and is fired, then no matter how they want to skirt around the issue he was fired for being white. Sure, if the circumstances are similar. I’m not sure that they are. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/73 "2015-02-12T18:37:16Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Uh no, that’s not how anti-discrimination laws work. > > It’s just as illegal to fire people for being white as it is to fire people for being black. > > Obviously the latter is more common than the former, but that doesn’t mean the former is legally permissible, with few exceptions. Ok, yes, I misspoke. You cannot fire someone for being white. However, when you start comparing treating white people different than black people for same conduct, you are talking about policies that have a “disparate impact” on a protected class. That’s what I meant to get at. Women and minorities are considered members of a “protected class.” White guys are not. Thus, you can fire a white guy for using language, even if you don’t fire a black guy for the same language. He’s not being fired for being white in that scenario. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/74 "2015-02-12T18:54:59Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m still astonished that anyone is reading his “Can we finally use the n-word” question as a legitimate question about linguistic protocol, as though the word “finally” has any place in such a question. I’m astonished that use of the word, “finally”, HAS to mean the speaker is expressing a personal desire to use the word and not a commentary on other people. I can easily imagine a scenario where the tv station regularly receives complaints from viewers who question use of the phrase, “the N-word”, if other slurs are not euphemized. It may have also been reflective of the fact that thousands of their viewers say, “nigger”, everyday to one another. In that context, the use of “finally” is suggestive of the expectation that _some_ viewers will be pleased, even if everyone else is uncomfortable. There’s nothing sinister there, just an acknowledgement of their audience. By the way, I don’t think any of the people getting upset about what the guy said spend any time among black, teen-aged males. Use of “nigger” is ubiquitous. (The girls use it less.) The worst the guy should have gotten was a talking-to. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/75 "2015-02-12T18:59:45Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > By the way, I don’t think any of the people getting upset about what the guy said spend any time among black, teen-aged males. Use of “nigger” is ubiquitous. (The girls use it less.) The worst the guy should have gotten was a talking-to. I’m not clear why you think the behavior of teenagers has any bearing on the treatment of an adult in a professional position. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/76 "2015-02-12T19:19:36Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m not clear why you think the behavior of teenagers has any bearing on the treatment of an adult in a professional position. Because the word is ubiquitous in the black community. It is not like gook, or wetback, or towel-head, or any other slur that has a generally pejorative use. In fact, I hear it regularly, and only rarely is it pejorative. (It’s usually: “Nigga, you comin?”, “Nigga, you see that?”, “Nigga, text me later”). That is NOT a word someone should be fired over. Of course, it can be used hatefully. But certainly a discussion of the word _as a word_ has no hateful undertones, unless you **choose** to define it that way. But that’s not how I hear it used. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/77 "2015-02-12T19:32:22Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > Because the word is ubiquitous in the black community. It is not like gook, or wetback, or towel-head, or any other slur that has a generally pejorative use. In fact, I hear it regularly, and only rarely is it pejorative. (It’s usually: “Nigga, you comin?”, “Nigga, you see that?”, “Nigga, text me later”). That is NOT a word someone should be fired over. > > Of course, it can be used hatefully. But certainly a discussion of the word _as a word_ has no hateful undertones, unless you **choose** to define it that way. But that’s not how I hear it used. It’s not ubiquitous in “the black community”. It might be ubiquitous among certain elements inside the black community, but it’s far from ubiquitous among the entire black community. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/78 "2015-02-12T20:24:14Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > White people are not a protected class. Don’t have to be. So I can fire a white guy for wearing a red shirt even if I let everyone else wear a red shirt and even if its obvious the real reasons I am firing him is because he is white? ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/79 "2015-02-12T20:28:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s not ubiquitous in “the black community”. It might be ubiquitous among certain elements inside the black community, but it’s far from ubiquitous among the entire black community. Look up “ubiquitous”. It doesn’t mean, “universal”. Duh. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414/80 "2015-02-12T20:28:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s not clear that he was fired for something (using a racial slur in an inappropriate and offensive manner) that a black guy wouldn’t be fired for. I thought we had established that he had not used it in an offensive or inappropriate manner unless the mere utterance is offensive or inappropriate. If a black guy had done the exact same thing in the exact same tone and manner, do you think he would have been fired? Of course not. There may have been other reasons for the termination but if it was just this then it looks like he might have a case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-racial-discrimination-suit/712414.md?page=5)