Would you testify against a dear (but probably guilty) friend in this discrimination lawsuit?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

I’m working half days now, so this seems a good time to ease back into my signature thread. Proofing is very difficult for me, so expect many typos. No apologies, just the explanation.

Today’s tale is about SHANNON, age 35, the new car sales manager at a luxury car dealership in Nashville, TN. Shannon is a secular Jew–raised reform, but pretty much an atheist now; she hasn’t been to temple in years except for family occasions. That will become importnant n a moment. As our story opens, it is Saturday night, and Shannon is at her local coffeehouse nursing a hot cocoa and trying very hard not to wish it was a hot scotch.

Shannon is an alcholic, you see, though currently seven years sober. While she was drinking she pretty much ruined her life, driving away her now former husband and losing both custody of and visitation with their kids. Her nadir wasn’t as low as it could have been–she’d lost her job and family but not her house–but it was still pretty bad; she slept all day and drank all night, taking advantage of her still pretty face to finance the latter. So it came to pass that one night she was in an alley behind a bar with a guy who liked his girls bloody and weeping rather than tipsy and willing.

That is how she met SAMUEL, who passed by the alley at just right moment. Seeing a large man holding a knife to a small woman’s cheek, he grabbed a convenient rebar and intervened; and though Samuel was far from Batman (he wet his pants during the ensuring scuffle), he was victorious. Nor was that the end of Samuel’s good Samaritan routine; he took her to the ER to get stitched up, paid her bill. When Shannon got evicted a few weeks later he let her stay at his house for a few weeks, and when she got an apartment of her own, she was able to pay the rent because she was working for him at the car dealership he owned.

Samuel never asked Shannon to pay for his help; the nearest he ever came to doing so was to insist that she go to AA… He considered helping a person in need his Christian duty. And in that category he went above and beyond, helping her study to become a car salesperson herself so she could make more money. Between his heroic entrance into her life and his continuing generosity Shannon found herself quite attracted to him, but when she made an advance she rebuffed it as inappropirate.

Which is not to say Samuel was perfect. Though he’d personally trained her im selling cars during her time as his secretaryand told her she’d be very good at it, when push came to shove he was unwilling to give her a sales job. “I’m sorry,” he said when she asked why, “but I only hire Christians for sales jobs. Really just Pentecostal Christians. I lie you and everything, and I’ll do what I can to help you, including helping you get a job at another dealership. But at this one, the one I own and that’s named after me, I only want somebody who’s saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost representing me. But I can and will get you a joh selling cars elsewhere.”

Samuel was as good as his word and as he predicted, Shannon excelled at selling cars from day one. He told her it was all because of her personality and hard worl; she gave much of the credit to his tutoring and support. No matter who was right, she rose through the ranks at her new dealership and now is making tons of money and supervising two dozen workers. That said, Samuel’s refusal to hire her for religious reasons always bothered her; this became more true as she moved up, because she came to realize that, with the size of his business, he was engaging in illegal discrimination.

Which brings us back to the present. Shannon has just been approached by a lawyer. It turns out that Samuel is being sued for dscrimination in his hiring practices. The lawyer is having problems finding anyone who can testify to explicit statements of bias on Samuel’s part; his client has only suspicions bit no proof. Shannon, in fact has just that proof. Not just the statement quoted above, but a letter Samiel wrote her a few years ago in which hd congratulated her on his success, invited her to Christmas Eve services at his church which she didn’t attend) and Chistmas dinner with his family (which she did). In that letter, Samuel very foolishly admitted to his bias against non Chirsitans, saying that if Shannon ever got saved, she should call him immediately so he could give her a job.Shannon still has that letter; no one knows of its existence.

Should Shannon tell the lawyer about this letter? Shoould she agree to testify? Why or why not?

No poll. Just typing this took me an hour
,
.[/SIZE]

[Velocity]

Skald is back!

…I would wait for a subpoena.

[Chimera]

I would not testify against someone who saved me from the gutter, especially one who did so selflessly.

I’m not generally loyal to people, because people are bastards. But in this situation, my loyalty and gratitude would not allow me to testify against him.

[iiandyiiii]

So glad to have another Skaldthetical!

I would not testify. Personal loyalty has value to me, even if its value doesn’t override everything (for example, if Samuel committed sexual assault). However, I might contact Samuel and try to convince him that what he was doing is both illegal and morally wrong, and that it’s morally wrong for him to continue. I would not threaten to testify, but I might be willing to end the friendship if he’s not willing to either change his ways or admit wrongdoing.

[yellowjacketcoder]

He’ll get her a job as a secretary but not as a salesperson? So it’s ok for her to work for him, just not sales work? Seems Samuel is a bit of a hypocrite.

How did this lawyer find Shannon, and what kind of lawyer proceeds with a lawsuit with nobody to testify? Unless the situation is “the lawyer is planning to sue, and won’t actually file if Shannon says no”.

I think it would be a good idea for Shannon to give Samuel a heads-up in that case. But either way I think she should ask for a one-on-one where she points out that what Samuel is doing is really not right and she wishes he’d stop for his own sake - if she’s feeling particularly saddled on a high-horse she might point out that she doesn’t have to BE a Christian to point out that he’s not acting like one in his business even if he’s acting like one outside of business.

Would I volunteer? No. I don’t like discrimination and I think Shannon should counsel Samuel against it, but it’s also not her fight. If this were a bigger deal (like murder) then she should. And while religious discrimination is a big deal, I think it’s too much to ask to have someone testify against their savior.

Do I think Shannon should tell the truth if she’s dragged up in court to testify? Yes. But I wouldn’t be happy about it.

EDIT of course iiandyiii says it better and in fewer words.

[Grrr]

Yes, Samuel needs to quit that nonsense despite his past altruistic endeavors.
So he helped ONE person under extraordinary circumstances. But this is all negated by the fact that he acts like an asshat on a daily basis.

Reminds of of a Simpsons quote:

Gay guy: “I finally got your respect Homer. And all I had to do was save your life.”

[Bricker]

@yellowjacketcoder

He’ll get her a job as a secretary but not as a salesperson? So it’s ok for her to work for him, just not sales work? Seems Samuel is a bit of a hypocrite.

He might be, but nothing in the story shows that he is.

He said, “But at this one, the one I own and that’s named after me, I only want somebody who’s saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost representing me.” A secretary does not represent the business to the public in the way a salesperson does.

His views are wonky, but not hypocritical.

[Bricker]

I don’t see a need for her to get involved. This is a civil suit; Samuel has no Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to testify in a deposition or at trial. (Strictly, if his testimony might cause him to be subject to criminal sanctions, he can refuse, but the jury or judge hearing his civil case can be told about his refusal and are allowed to take it into account against him).

The lawyer will undoubtedly depose Samuel, and as an upright Pentecostal Christian, he will certainly feel compelled to tell the truth under oath, right?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@yellowjacketcoder

He’ll get her a job as a secretary but not as a salesperson? So it’s ok for her to work for him, just not sales work? Seems Samuel is a bit of a hypocrite.

How did this lawyer find Shannon, and what kind of lawyer proceeds with a lawsuit with nobody to testify? Unless the situation is “the lawyer is planning to sue, and won’t actually file if Shannon says no”.

I think it would be a good idea for Shannon to give Samuel a heads-up in that case. But either way I think she should ask for a one-on-one where she points out that what Samuel is doing is really not right and she wishes he’d stop for his own sake - if she’s feeling particularly saddled on a high-horse she might point out that she doesn’t have to BE a Christian to point out that he’s not acting like one in his business even if he’s acting like one outside of business.

Would I volunteer? No. I don’t like discrimination and I think Shannon should counsel Samuel against it, but it’s also not her fight. If this were a bigger deal (like murder) then she should. And while religious discrimination is a big deal, I think it’s too much to ask to have someone testify against their savior.

Do I think Shannon should tell the truth if she’s dragged up in court to testify? Yes. But I wouldn’t be happy about it.

EDIT of course iiandyiii says it better and in fewer words.

Samuel DID get Shannon job as a salesperson. He didn’t hire her or his own company, but the OP clearly says that he helped her get her first sales job, which is what led tlo her current fairly lucrative position. Also, he is the one who trained her, and she believes that his support and tutelage made her initial success possible.

As for how the lawyer found Shannon: Discovery. Detective work. The OP notes that she is Jewish, so her last name could easily be something identifiable as such, such as Cohen. It doesn’t really matter, because how the lawyer fpumd her is irrlevant to Shannon’s dilemma.

[jtur88]

As a general principle, if I “know” something about a friend, it is because that friend revealed something to me in confidence, and I am bound to honor that confidentiality. No doubt there are hypothetical circumstances in which I might disclose somethng about which I consider myself (by my own honor) to be sworn to secrecy, but I can’t think of any.

I picture myself sentenced for contempt of court, for explaining “Your Honor, I know I am under oath, but I am also under tacit and implied oath to my friend, an oath of even greater durability, because it was made of my own free will, not under the duress of the armed man standing over there in the corner of this courtoom. And as we all know, nobody is bound to a contract made under duress.”

[Shodan]

I wouldn’t testify. Unless the hypothetical has recipes.

Regards,
Shodan

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Bricker

I don’t see a need for her to get involved. This is a civil suit; Samuel has no Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to testify in a deposition or at trial. (Strictly, if his testimony might cause him to be subject to criminal sanctions, he can refuse, but the jury or judge hearing his civil case can be told about his refusal and are allowed to take it into account against him).

The lawyer will undoubtedly depose Samuel, and as an upright Pentecostal Christian, he will certainly feel compelled to tell the truth under oath, right?

A what now?

@Grrr

Yes, Samuel needs to quit that nonsense despite his past altruistic endeavors.
So he helped ONE person under extraordinary circumstances. But this is all negated by the fact that he acts like an asshat on a daily basis.

Reminds of of a Simpsons quote:

Gay guy: “I finally got your respect Homer. And all I had to do was save your life.”

The question is not what Samuel should or should not do. It is whether Shannon’s loyalty to him should trump her obligation to … hold on, I heard a new word today, let me look it up…“righteousness.”

Me, I’d tell the lawyer to get bent. Artfully, of course. But I’d decline to testify, burn the letter, and if subpoenaed I would lie like a Gallifreyan.

Your Simpsons’ quote does not seem appropriate. Shannon has not saved Samuel; he saved her, at the cost of both physical danger and probably some embarrassement (remember, he wet his pants duiing the fight as if he were some sort of blue-skinned, white-hatted homunculus). Then he paid her hospital bill, put her up for weeks, gave her a job, and helped her get sober, none of which he had the slightest obligation to do, and turned down the offer of sex on account if it being inappropriate (not only because he was her boss at that point, but (speaking as poster rather than OP, so you needn’t agree) probbaly because he intuited that she was not in a place to make a responsible decision about whom she was gonna boink.

I mention all this because of your use of the word “hypocrite.” I don’t see how it applies. When I call someone a hypocrite (which i do rarely. as it is qiuicker just to knee them in the balls), I mean that that person is claiming that activity A is immoral but still indulging in it in private. What do you mean by other, rather than “this person is doing something I dislike”?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@iiandyiiii

So glad to have another Skaldthetical!

I would not testify. Personal loyalty has value to me, even if its value doesn’t override everything (for example, if Samuel committed sexual assault). However, I might contact Samuel and try to convince him that what he was doing is both illegal and morally wrong, and that it’s morally wrong for him to continue. I would not threaten to testify, but I might be willing to end the friendship if he’s not willing to either change his ways or admit wrongdoing.

It’s extremely unlikely that Samuel does not know that religious discrimination is illegal. I doubt he would agree that it’s immoral no matter what she says.

[TriPolar]

I wouldn’t want to testify against Samuel. I don’t see great harm done, obviously there are other dealerships where non-Pentacostals can find work, in Shannon’s case he even helped her find one. For me it would be a matter of loyalty to someone who had saved my life in more ways than one. I couldn’t bring myself to do it. I would tell Samuel that he should testify honestly in court to his own actions, his claim to faith would seem to require that of him. I would think less of Samuel if he didn’t do that, but not so much that I’d want to do him harm. If he was doing something more seriously harmful to others at some point I’d feel an obligation to testify but I don’t know where that line would be. If I was subpoened I’d hire a lawyer to try to get me out of that, and if I had no choice but to testify in court I’d tell Samuel I’d have to tell the truth and try to convince him to settle the suit instead of letting it go that far. But I would be very reluctant to testify against him.

[Grrr]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

A what now?

The question is not what Samuel should or should not do. It is whether Shannon’s loyalty to him should trump her obligation to … hold on, I heard a new word today, let me look it up…“righteousness.”

Me, I’d tell the lawyer to get bent. Artfully, of course. But I’d decline to testify, burn the letter, and if subpoenaed I would lie like a Gallifreyan.

I understand the question. I’m saying, if I were Shannon, I would testify.

Your Simpsons’ quote does not seem appropriate. Shannon has not saved Samuel; he saved her, at the cost of both physical danger and probably some embarrassement (remember, he wet his pants duiing the fight as if he were some sort of blue-skinned, white-hatted homunculus). Then he paid her hospital bill, put her up for weeks, gave her a job, and helped her get sober, none of which he had the slightest obligation to do, and turned down the offer of sex on account if it being inappropriate (not only because he was her boss at that point, but (speaking as poster rather than OP, so you needn’t agree) probbaly because he intuited that she was not in a place to make a responsible decision about whom she was gonna boink.

I get that he saved her life. But the idea that she should be forever indebted to him because he did this really nice thing seems crazy to me.

He helped one person, but how many others has he caused hardships to because of his fucked up policy?

We have no way of measuring the harm Samuel is doing on a daily basis.

My moral obligation to the community far out weighs any obligation I have to this bigoted man that did a really nice thing for me.

I mention all this because of your use of the word “hypocrite.” I don’t see how it applies. When I call someone a hypocrite (which i do rarely. as it is qiuicker just to knee them in the balls), I mean that that person is claiming that activity A is immoral but still indulging in it in private. What do you mean by other, rather than “this person is doing something I dislike”?

I did not use the word hypocrite in my previous post. I think you’re confusing me with someone else. yellowjacket I believe.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@TriPolar

I wouldn’t want to testify against Samuel. I don’t see great harm done, obviously there are other dealerships where non-Pentacostals can find work, in Shannon’s case he even helped her find one. For me it would be a matter of loyalty to someone who had saved my life in more ways than one. I couldn’t bring myself to do it. I would tell Samuel that he should testify honestly in court to his own actions, his claim to faith would seem to require that of him. I would think less of Samuel if he didn’t do that, but not so much that I’d want to do him harm. If he was doing something more seriously harmful to others at some point I’d feel an obligation to testify but I don’t know where that line would be. If I was subpoened I’d hire a lawyer to try to get me out of that, and if I had no choice but to testify in court I’d tell Samuel I’d have to tell the truth and try to convince him to settle the suit instead of letting it go that far. But I would be very reluctant to testify against him.

I don’t see any point in talking to Samuel. Personal loyalty would have mde me destroy the documentary evidence (the letter) as soon as I got home that night. If Samuel chooses fess up about it or anything else my lack of possession of it won’t matter, and if he isn’t honest or forthcoming in the deposition process or in court, what do iI care? My declining to help the person suing him has nothing to do with his current beahvior; it’s simple loyalty.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

She doesn’t have to testify. Just have the lawyer subpoena that letter, where Samuel admits in writing to his illegal discrimination practices. Once the lawyer has that, her testimony is not needed.

[Trinopus]

“I only hire Christians?” Yes, he needs correcting via the legal system.

If possible, I’d like to see him under a consent decree; it doesn’t have to go to punitive awards. He needs to change his ways, however, and, yes, I’d testify against him, no matter how nice a guy he is.

You can’t do shit like that in America.

[BigT]

Loyalty ends where ethics begin. In other words, I am loyal to you as long as being loyal to you will not require me to perform an immoral action. I reject loyalty as a part of morality and see it as a form of tribalism–the same thing that makes racism immoral.

The problem I have with this is that I’m not sure his actions were actually wrong. Without the finding her work elsewhere, I’d be sure. But, with that, I’m not. And, since I’m not sure, I don’t find it unethical to not try to testify.

However, I would not lie for him, either. I’m not so sure that he’s right to think that lying becomes okay. So it becomes an issue of whether the lawyer asks the right questions.

If I did appear in court, I would demand that I be able to tell the whole story, and not just the discriminatory part. And then let the jury decide whether he should be punished.

I would, after this, try to help him out if he needs it. And explain that I couldn’t lie for him.

[yellowjacketcoder]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Samuel DID get Shannon job as a salesperson. He didn’t hire her or his own company, but the OP clearly says that he helped her get her first sales job, which is what led tlo her current fairly lucrative position. Also, he is the one who trained her, and she believes that his support and tutelage made her initial success possible.

I think you are taking me too literally. I will rephrase.

Samuel hired Shannon as a Secretary. It is therefore hypocritical to then claim he will not hire her as a salesperson. If you can hire her for one job regardless of her religion you can hire her for the others.

I note Bricker’s caveat; my response is that I conflated receptionist with secretary - mea culpa.