In this context, not referring to their gender, or to them personally is the point. I never said anything about it being impossible to refer to them in other ways, but those ways would also be considered “offensive” I’m sure. Something like “good afternoon” in this context is picked because it doesn’t refer to them at all in any way.
You can’t not insult people who want to take offense that badly.
Why? Because they all also refer to their gender?
No, because the people in question are just looking for an excuse, and because the alternatives all sound awkward or stupid. Or are genuinely insulting.
Do you really think they’d prefer “humans” over “ladies”?
I disagree. Although “Ladies” is definitely not the preferred salutation – something like “Dear members of the selection committee” is far better, I’m sure that’s not the reason his job offer was rescinded. I think the following would have been just fine, even if the “ladies” bristled a little:
“Ladies, I perused the contract and I am pleased and honoured to accept your offer."
As for gender-neutral greetings, I always recommend “Yo! Wazzup?” 
Right, there is no causation there.
If a mixed group, Ladies and gentlemen is quite proper.
Not really. It is an unsubstantiated claim.
I’ll get a moderator to swear me in with my hand on the Flying Spaghetti Monster comic book.
Maybe so, bur you might offend “morning people.”
I think the concept you’re groping for here is vocative case, “an expression of direct address by which the identity of the party spoken to is set forth expressly within a sentence”.
You are right that forms of direct address like “Ladies and gentlemen”, “Hello everybody”, “My dear colleagues”, etc., contain expressions in the vocative case, whereas forms of direct address like “Hi” and “Good afternoon” do not.
But you just confused the issue by incorrectly claiming in your post #25 that the difference in those forms of direct address is the difference between talking “to them” and talking “about them indirectly”, without addressing them at all. No: all forms of direct address involve talking directly to the addressees, whether or not a vocative-case expression is included.
I’m way less concerned about the “Ladies” (which would be fine if the other gender were being represented…“Gentlemen”) than I am about the 14 (!!!) weeks of vacation requested.
This made me wonder if he was tailing out another job.
I think your mind-reading capacities may not be as good as you think they are.
There is nothing awkward, stupid, or insulting about “good afternoon” (or “morning” or “evening” as applicable). You just don’t like it, for reasons that apparently make sense to you but make none to me.
There are a batch of other alternatives, depending on the situation. A number of them have been suggested in this thread.
Getting back to the OP: I also very much doubt that “ladies” was the problem in that batch of demands. The list of requirements seems designed to get the applicant turned down. Perhaps the person in question was just looking for an excuse.
Not according to the judge; he never had a job yet.
The committee made him an offer; he replied with a counter-offer. In contract law, that means that a contract had not yet been formed.
By making a counter-offer, he was stating that he had not accepted the contract offered by the committee, and was seeking a contract with different terms.
The committee would be justified at that point in saying: “We reject your counter-offer. Negotiations are over. Good-bye.”
I’m not so sure that’s a fair characterization. It sounds like his use of “ladies” contributed to the ending of negotiations:
Former School Committee member Cynthia Kwiecinski told her colleagues that she was “insulted” and thought the salutation was “unprofessional and dismissive,” according to court documents. Other members argued that the use of “ladies” was a “microaggression.”
Had everything else been in order, perhaps the negotiations would have proceeded even though some people on the committee raised their eyebrows over “ladies.” We’ll never know. As it happens, there were several concerns, of which that was one.
Personally, I find the use of “ladies” to strike a mildly distasteful note. I certainly wouldn’t vote to end negotiations for that reason; it’s too trivial to matter and I can easily believe that a perfectly wonderful person might use the term. But if there were a lot of other red flags, I might think, “yeah, and his phrasing could use a little work, too.” I doubt I’d say anything though; I’d focus on the substantive deficiencies.
That happened to me once. I was very sad. I also knew that that was the chance I took when I countered.
Good points.
And they didn’t give any such reason as using “Ladies and Gentlemen”. That was something he made up.