I suggest people read the article (and the judges summary linked therein) before offering an opinion.
It sounds like he could win the suit, depending on how strong the evidence is that his co-anchor (and/or other co-workers) offered biased information to the employer (cat’s paw theory of liability). I hope a lawyer weighs in on this.
What’s unknown is what, if anything, this guy did to become so disliked by his co-workers. But I’m not sure if that has any bearing, unless he really does have a documented history of racial insensitivity.
It’s pretty close. I’m squeamish, so I’m changing the word in question.
Joe: Can I call Bob a cracker now?
Bob: Joe just asked if he could call me a cracker!
Boss: What the hell, Joe!
Joe: There was a rally all about Cracker being dead, and I just asked if I could call Bob a cracker!
Bob: Jesus, I can’t work with this guy!
Boss: You’re fired, Joe.
There’s no parity between how Joe and Bob used the word.
When I was in scouts, there was a scoutmaster I respected quite a bit that had a very racially diverse troop. When of his black scouts used that word, he let them know in no uncertain terms that that scout was not to repeat the word in his troop. When said scout’s mom complained, he asked if she would be ok with a white scout using the word. She said no. He responded that it doesn’t matter what race you are, if it’s not ok for one person in his troop to use the word it’s not ok for any person in the troop to use the word.
I believe it’s the same here. If it’s not ok for a white employee to use the word then it’s not ok for any employee to use the word. If the station is firing one employee for usage but not another based on race, I think that’s fair evidence that the station is discriminating racially.
There are two key points that have been left out so far: he was assigned racial sensitivity training, which he took immediately and the trainer there said he passed with flying colors. It sounds to me like he was not doing anything out of malice and did everything the station asked.
What really stuck out though was his co-anchor’s response. Seems like she had it out for him for some reason. Trying to get other coworkers to complain about him, nebulous “comments from the street” (how would anyone outside that office know unless she was spreading info around?), saying she was “concerned for her safety”? I think he probably should be suing his coworker for slander.
Your scoutmaster was wrong. It’s akin to the “little brother” rule: only I get to make fun of my little brother. And only I get to call myself a dork. And I only get to use racial epithets that apply to me. This is not some special snowflake exception carved out for the n-word; it’s a basic part of human psychology that shows up in all sorts of different ways.
Count me in with those who think you can talk about the word “nigger” without actually being racist, without calling anyone “nigger”, and without using the word in a derogatory sense. Even if you’re white.
“The N word” is a childish euphemism. And it’s superstitious, too. If you’re thinking “nigger”, and your audience thinks “nigger”, it doesn’t matter whether you actually wrote “N____” or “the N word” in the text, the word you’re communicating remains “nigger”. Words don’t lose their power if you cleverly avoid letting them leave your lips or fingers. Nor do they gain special power by being referred to in their naked, unmodified form.
Which all boils down to “don’t be a pussy, if you’re talking about the word, spell it out” but also “if you use the word ‘nigger’ to refer to an actual person, whether fictional or not, you’re a racist and should stop”.
As far as this particular case goes, I personally think his employer has the right to fire him because his farts smell funny or because his hair is the wrong shade of brown. Whether he should be fired? I don’t know the guy. Maybe so. But probably not just for mentioning an offensive word.
I absolutely disagree. Maybe in your house, but certainly not in any kind of public/employer/non-family situation.
You don’t get to make fun of anyone, related to them or not. You don’t get to call people insulting names, yourself or not. And you don’t get to use racial epithets, whether your that race or not. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
EDIT: You would be ok with sexual harassment in the office, as long as the two were dating? You would be ok with racial discrimination in hiring, as long as the boss and applicant are the same race? You would be ok with one employee insulting another in the breakroom as long as they’re related? I’m glad I don’t work for you.
I don’t see why you can’t both be right. Obviously, black people can and do use the word in useful ways among each other. And I’m the last person to say “well if they can say it, why can’t I?” because that’s some real racist sounding shit (just an FYI to anyone out there thinking about bringing this point up).
Nevertheless, I see no problem with having a blanket rule among the group that any bad words are bad for everyone. You can go home and call your brothers and sisters and neighborhood friends “nigger” all you want if your mom is okay with it. But as a scout leader I’m not going to let you get away with saying something that I would rightly punish another child for.
This doesn’t carry over to the case in the OP because I highly doubt he was fired for saying “nigger” once in the same sense others who weren’t fired did.
Tom: “blah blah blah nigger blah blah blah”.
Boss: “Great idea! Hand in that report tomorrow.”
Bob: “blah blah blah nigger blah blah blah”.
Boss: “You’re fired!”.
If that was the case then I’d say yeah, the guy shouldn’t have been fired. I just really, really doubt that was the case. Maybe he still shouldn’t have been fired for what he actually did get fired for, but it wasn’t for that.
FWIW I think the scout leader was right to ban the word from the troop, but the reasoning was faulty. The word should be banned from the troop because it’s hurtful, not because white kids don’t get to say it.
Reading that made me wonder what it would take to not pass racial sensitivity training and pass. The options that came to mind were all brutally funny … and no way in hell I would write down any of them here.
I have had the same thought, but there’s something wrong about “Take this or we fire you” “Alright I took it” “We’re firing you anyway”.
I think without having audio of the office room where the original comment was made, we can’t know how it was said. If it was one of those poor taste jokes then his coworker’s crusade was out of line. If he was breaking out the white robe and pointy hat then sure, but someone I think people are assuming the worst when they say he should stay fired.
First, why was it out of line? Second, and more importantly, do you feel that it’s so out of line that it’s legally actionable, or is it the kind of “out of line” that ought to be between an employer and its employees?
FWIW, it comes across to me a whole lot more like a poor taste joke than like a Klansman waiting to get down and dirty, but like a poor joke motivated by some ugly racial resentment.
I’m not “playing innocent” nor am I trying to make excuses. I’m trying to have an important discussion about a touchy issue. Please take that at face value (and I’m someone who tends to agree with your specific take on things much more often than not).
Based on the article, it seems clear that while his usage was one of questionable merit, he didn’t call anyone an epithet, nor was he asking if he could call anyone an epithet. He asked the jerkish question if he could use the epithet in any context, which it is now clear that he can’t.
I agree with all that, but I think that maybe the law should fight against that difference. I don’t want the government in the business of deciding who’s black/white/asian/hispanic/other enough to use specific language in specific context. And, I think that employers making those kinds of judgements as a basis for termination (firing people for saying words, but only if they’re specific skin color) is racial discrimination.
I think there’s a world of difference between “Can I use the word cracker,” which is what is reported in the OP, and “can I call Bob a cracker,” which is not what happened.
I see where you’re coming from but the scoutmaster was talking about the language used within the context of scout meetings and activities. Under the “little brother” rule it might be acceptable to call someone fuckface but it wouldn’t be acceptable while at a scout meeting or activity.
According to the published accounts, he asked it in a specific context. They were discussing the story that was to air that night, about the mock funeral for the word. He was proposing to use the actual word on air during the report, rather than the phrase “the n word”. Note that he said, “Can we finally use the word n*****?”
I have no idea if he is truly racially insensitive or not, but it does seem apparent that there was a lot of bad blood between him and his co-anchor. This is the most damning thing against him revealed so far, a statement he made after the meeting (which the co-anchor did not attend):
Because if someone makes a bad joke, you either call them on it then, and if they apologize you leave it alone, or if they don’t or you aren’t comfortable calling them, you report it to HR and let them deal with it. Cajoling coworkers into making baseless complaints to get someone fired is wholly inappropriate.
