Not if the leak is considered as another employee acting in discriminatory animus. The employer would be liable in that instance.
And again, your evidence of him being an asshole is subjective and generalized and not reflected in the depositions or request for summary dismissal. No one mentioned it in the way you are reading it. It only mentions the use of the word itself, and (subsequently) the defense’s belief that, as a white person, he should not use it in the workplace, but that it is not necessarily actionable if a black person uses it in the workplace:
I understand your ambivalence is because of your opinion that he was acting as an asshole, is that correct? Specifically, that he asked that particular question, and used the word when asking.
I can’t get on board with terminating someone, and allowing other employees to get away - without consequence - with basically destroying his career by speaking to the news about a private meeting where he asked one question (exaggerating the circumstances, no less), and then continuing to lobby for termination, even after he was deemed in compliance, and showed remorse. Regardless of their (or your) belief that a white person shouldn’t use the word, the offense did not rise to a level that deserved that much animus, and damage to the plaintiff, in return. Calling him an asshole is one thing, but this goes way beyond a proportionate response.
I don’t understand how you could feel otherwise, so in that respect, we’re even.
No, it was published before the note indicating the desire he return to work. And there was no liability to their brand by his asking a question in a private meeting, only the leak did that.
Which carefully ignores the “n------ bitch” exchange and the complaints of multiple other staffers regarding his behavior.
Acting as though the whole situation hinged only on one question in one staff meeting is fine for making a case for discrimination, but it clearly ignores the context in which that one question was posed.
(And the defenses I have seen posted regarding his use of “finally” have been unpersuasive. That whole comment comes off as offensive. The reaction to it appears to have been reinforced by a perception of his overall behavior, not a single question. It does not help, of course, that on the other side the HR person seems to have been a twit, but we will probably have to wait for the trial to discover the actual context of all the various conversations.)
Personally I don’t care if the person who uses words like “slant” “slopehead” “gook” “buddhahead” “Ching Chong” or “chink” is Asian or not, I find it offensive. I am not sure why blacks don’t find the word “nigger” offensive just because it is being used by young black men who are too young to remember the civil rights movement. Seriously, if I saw young Asian men start to refer to each other as chink, I think I would want to kick their ass.
I know you know this, but this reads like a very broad-brush statement, especially given the context of the thread, i.e., the NAACP holding a rally to bury the word.
That said, do you understand the arguments made by folks who use the word? Have you sought them out? Would you like some links? Or when you say you’re not sure why [implied some] blacks don’t find the word offensive, do you mean you understand but disagree?
I’m not ignoring it, Tom, I’m the one who originally posted about it on page one.
I said it was damning, but as the judge said, he can argue his reasoning for saying it at a trial.
I’m not hinging the case on one question. I was responding to the reaction of some here about how his question could only have a nefarious or assholish intent because of the way it was worded. Again, I would like to know more about that conversation, but his stated opinion about using the word itself - in a news story about the word itself - is shared by others in broadcasting:
It’s not an opinion outside the bounds of mainstream journalism.
The idea that attempting to discuss it in a private meeting of professional news people can only be ill intentioned or stupid doesn’t make sense. If they didn’t agree with it, why not discuss it rationally? They’re seasoned reporters in Philly, FFS. Racial issues are a prominent feature in the local news, and they should be able to talk about it openly amongst themselves without hysterics.
The depositions clearly show that no one thought he was using it as a slur or had malicious intent. Another reporter used the word in a prior meeting (as a slur) and was met with laughter. You cannot justify their subsequent reaction to him saying it (not as a slur) as anything other than race based, unless it is a personal animus towards him from some co-workers. Either way, it is discriminatory, and management set it up that way when they did not enforce their supposed policy to not use the word across the board, and allowed the maneuverings of his co-workers to influence their decision.
Oh, stop. We are communicating clearly. I see what you’re saying. I simply disagree. It happens.
I don’t enjoy being on the “wrong” side of popular opinion here, but I don’t want to be intimidated by it either. I am approaching this as if we were jurors at the trial. This is how I see it with the information at hand. I am open to changing my mind if new information presents itself.
But I will say that I would be troubled by the actions of his co-anchor in any case, and it would trouble me if I was the employer in this instance. Leaking that exaggerated story was done with no concern for the negative publicity that would also reflect on the employer. It was self serving. I am assuming they did not investigate because they knew who did it (his co-anchor), and they wanted to keep her on the air. Maybe they felt she was a higher ratings draw. A pragmatic decision, but it might come back to bite them in this case. I’m no fan of back-stabbing conniving co-workers, and I think a jury might feel that way as well. We’ve all encountered them.
I do think it’s funny that you think a reporter should know better than to ask a stupid question. It seems to me that’s one of the job requirements. I think it will all come down to who presents as more sincere and likable at the trial. Unless they negotiate a settlement, and then we’ll never know.
No. Your responses have to do with the same case as the one I’m discussing, but they’re not directly responsive to what I’m saying. I made my point as clearly as I knew how, and I failed to see how what you said in any way refuted it, although you obviously thought it did. Unless you care to clarify or to reconsider, i don’t see much point in continuing.
More importantly, the way to minimize the damage from the adverse publicity was to fire the asshole. Firing the leaker would only make matters worse, and give the impression that the asshole’s behavior was tolerated, or even encouraged.
The sad fact of working for a place the relies on a good public image is that even if you didn’t do anything wrong, if having you as an employee hurts their image, you may want to start checking the want ads.
You’re not required to respond to me if that’s how you feel. I said from the beginning we could agree to disagree, and we were reading it in different ways. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but if you’re so sure your view is the only correct view, then so be it. Hung jury for these exchanges.
Which is why the way the question was worded looks so damning. It is exactly the way that someone would word the question if he or she were trying to make an opening to have free rein to use it in multiple situations, not the way one would word a question about that night’s broadcast. The reactions of the staff suggests that there is more going on than the news articles have indicated. (I exclude Ameena Ali from the reactions of the rest of the staff because, if she was quoted accurately, she comes across as an idiot, regardless.)
If he is vindicated when it goes to trial, good for him. However, contrary to the OP’s opinion, there is nothing “obvious” about his claim being “right.”
The final warning memorandum is your evidence? The defendants testified that they would not have given a final warning to an employee they were going to terminate. By all indications, they planned to keep him on if he complied with the terms. He was in compliance. He was told that they would “ride it out”.
In addition, evidence exists that there were no repurcussions at all when the black employees used the word at a meeting, or when describing events to HR, which points to discrimination. Management could not account for the discrepancy in treatment that wasn’t race based.
You can say that Joyce Evans reacted to him being an asshole, but the record shows that she was acting on the belief that a black employee could say the word, but not a white employee, and that is discrimination. You can say that the leak was due to his behavior, but it can be countered by the evidence that it was motivated by discriminatory animus. Do you want to read the piece that was published? Here. Compare it to the deposition. It is a mischaracterization of what the deposed people at the meeting described. Should he be held responsible for a falsified version of his behavior?
If they terminated his employment for cause, due to adverse publicity, as stated in his employment contract, then why did the judge not dismiss his case as the defendants requested?
It goes back to what I said, the evidence of discrimination. Because the plaintiff presented enough evidence of discrimination and discriminatory animus, the employer’s stated reasons of termination can be seen by a reasonable jury as a pretext.
The defendant’s claim (adverse publicity as cause) is also belied by the fact that the defamatory piece was published on July 5th, and yet on July 9th, management still sent a memo to HR requesting he return to air. As the judge noted, the only thing that happened between the memo requesting his return and his termination notice was the continued lobbying of Joyce Evans.
The reason given to the plaintiff at the time was “concern for safety”. This “concern for safety” is mirrored in the HR notes taken as voiced by, guess who, Joyce Evans. Who also lobbied others to voice their own concerns for safety if they worked with him. What was it based on? Anonymous messages received by - that’s right - Joyce Evans, from “people on the street”. She had previously helped facilitate another reporter’s non renewal of contract using the same “people on the street” telling her they were “concerned” the on air news team was “very white” (this was in her deposition).
If you are still conflicted about the claim of discrimination, in the face of the evidence presented and the depositions, then we are at an impasse, because that is the basis of my opinion. I cannot see it as a secondary consideration, because it affected everything that transpired from the meeting itself to the termination decision.
I believe management is liable, because they allowed Joyce Evans to influence the course of events and their final decision. Better management would have had clearer protocols for acceptable language and enforced them evenly, and should have guided the discussion and intervened during the actual meeting to prevent the situation from getting asout of control as it did. The workplace disruption they claimed was compounded by their failure to effectively and fairly manage their employees.
Again, the guy could well be an asshole, but there is evidence he was not alone in that. If they happen to prefer some assholes over others, they still have to answer for their discriminatory actions.
Do you still think he meant it as a joke? I think he was sincere, thinking he was being cutting edge, which was an unfortunate mistake on his part. He obviously didn’t have a good read on his audience in that discussion. But I would never expect news anchors to be the sharpest knives in the drawer in any case.
It’s one piece of evidence. The fact that they wouldn’t give a final warning to an employee they were going to terminate is totally irrelevant to the question of whether he was an asshole. Did anyone ask them whether they would give a final warning to someone who had done nothing wrong? Of course not, because that’s a stupid question. OF COURSE the issuance of a final warning is based on poor behavior. I have no idea why you think the fact that they initially didn’t plan to terminate him for his asshole behavior indicates that they didn’t think it was problematic.
Where’s your evidence that management couldn’t so account?
First, I reject your finding that it’s discriminatory to say that there’s a difference between someone using a racial epithet that applies to their own racial identity, and someone using a racial epithet that does not apply to their own racial identity. That finding is goofball, and the more I think about it, the more the judge was wrong to consider this thinking discriminatory.
Second, while she did hold this belief, there’s no evidence at all that it was her only problem with his behavior, that if a Chinese person or a Latino person or a Middle Eastern person engaged in similar behavior, she’d be okay with it. Or that if a black person had, she’d be okay with it. Use of the word is not the only issue; context is also an issue.
Third, whether he should be held responsible for a “falsified” version of behavior is not a question before the court. If the employer thinks he’s brought shame to the family, even through a spun version of his behavior, that’s their call.
Seriously? Do you not understand why? Okay, here it is: because the judge thinks there are triable issues. The judge is not ruling that it was absolutely discrimination. The judge thinks that the question is open. That’s the first part.
The second part might be a technicality, because maybe you just misspoke. But it’s important: they didn’t terminate his employment for cause. They said they could, and he resigned.
So what? They thought initially that a “go ye and sin no more” would suffice to get his obnoxious behavior’s effects to blow over. But then they realized that that wasn’t going to satisfy anyone, that even after he’d cried big crocodile tears, he was still a millstone around their necks
No they don’t. They’re allowed to prefer some assholes over others. They only have to answer if they preferred black employees over white employees.
Out of curiosity, this guy has been unable to find jobs with any other news station. Is it your theory that every other news station is equally racist against white male news anchors? Otherwise, how do you account for this fact?
The question before the court is whether his termination was discriminatory or legitimate.
The fact that they didn’t plan to terminate is totally relevant because it establishes the employer’s intent and how the decision was subsequently influenced by Joyce Evans. It is not in dispute that they considered it problematic, but the reason it reached the level where they considered it so is because Joyce Evans lobbied for it. A prior use of the word in a meeting was met with laughter.
This is not insignificant and you should not wave off this evidence with disparaging remarks, as it is establishes her role in his termination. The employer can be held responsible for her actions of discriminatory animus.
It is not my finding, and simply rejecting it and calling it names is not a persuasive refutation.
Using different standards for employees based on their race goes against the purpose and language of Title VII.
Would you accept it if the races were reversed in this case? What you appear to propose here would be a nightmare to fairly enforce in the workplace, and would constitute a reinterpretation of Title VII.
It is true that this particular question has not been answered by the federal court yet, but you need a much more compelling argument if you expect the court to even consider doing such a thing.
Just to note: At least 2 previous courts have ruled that the use of the word by African Americans in the workplace was discriminatory and hostile and resulted in damages to the plaintiffs.
That’s right, there is no evidence that she had another problem with the plaintiff; that would be up to the defense to provide if it exists. What have you got?
Her belief is established in this context: She and the plaintiff were discussing the issue as journalists, and whether or not a white journalist could use the word:
Again, the question is relevant because the falsified (no quote marks; compare with deposition testimony) information from a private company meeting was leaked to the news - which is against company policy - and the source cited was an employee. This provides evidence of discriminatory animus, which* is* a question that is before the court.
Seriously yourself. It was a rhetorical question, which I answered in the next paragraph, which you omitted. I understand what the judge was ruling on, I even provided you a quote from the judge explaining it. Sorry I did not include the “could” in the question; I meant to go into more detail on that further on but I edited it out.
But I am afraid that you misspoke here on a point of fact: He did not resign. He was offered the opportunity. He was paid through his remaining contract and then it was not renewed.
Who needed to be satisfied? Joyce Evans? Do you not realize this admission helps the plaintiff? That is an integral part of his case, that Joyce Evans’ discriminatory animus and continued lobbying influenced their decision.
And what evidence do you have to show the plaintiff was not remorseful? Disparaging comments are not evidence. He explained himself and apologized to everyone at the meeting. He completed sensitivity training, was noted as being remorseful by the EAP, and declared “fit to return to work”. Again, no one at the meeting attributed his intent as malice, and the word was not directed at anyone. This was a single incident in an unblemished career.
And there is evidence to show this was so. The black employees who used the word were shown favorable treatment over the plaintiff (see cite above re defendants deposition on company policy; more at source).
It is a highly competitive field, and a small field. It is indicative of his qualifications and previously unblemished record (which the defense concedes) that he was able obtain the weekend anchor position at this company.
The defamatory story published due to discriminatory animus was damaging to his reputation, and it is fair to assume (as the judge has noted) that Joyce Evans exerts considerable influence in that local market. Family considerations may have prevented him from considering relocating outside the market area (his wife has a career of her own, children in school). There are also financial considerations - the smaller markets do not pay well. He is probably earning more now selling high end real estate. But this isn’t about the money.
Yes, I realize the OP references an NAACP attempt to bury the word but its still widely used.
Sure, I understand the notion of trying to “own” the word or take back the word or whatever and I disagree. Like I said, any attempt by Asian yoots to try to own the word “chink” would strike me as self destructive. Same with calling each other dogs and bitches and hos. I remember when black men and women referred to each other as sister and brother.
