PDA

View Full Version : Tennessee Tea Partiers To GOP Gov: Stop Employing Muslims, Gays, Democrats!



wardd
07-18-2012, 01:36 PM
Conservatives and Tea Party activists in Tennessee have recently pushed several Republican Party county organizations to pass resolutions criticizing the state’s Republican governor for, among other things, employing Muslims, gay people, and Democrats.


http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/tennessee_tea_party_bill_haslam.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Flying Orca
07-18-2012, 01:39 PM
Don't you guys have some kind of protection against discrimination on prohibited grounds? 'Cause those are some prohibited grounds, right there...

Kaa
07-18-2012, 01:52 PM
Don't you guys have some kind of protection against discrimination on prohibited grounds? 'Cause those are some prohibited grounds, right there...

Actually, a single one -- discrimination based on religion is illegal. You *can* discriminate on the basis of sexual preferences and political views (otherwise, when a new administration settles into the White House, how do you think they get rid of all the previous political appointees?)

Kaa

Flying Orca
07-18-2012, 01:59 PM
Actually, a single one -- discrimination based on religion is illegal. You *can* discriminate on the basis of sexual preferences and political views (otherwise, when a new administration settles into the White House, how do you think they get rid of all the previous political appointees?)

Kaa

Hmmm, interesting. I would have thought that Cabinet positions were appointments at the pleasure of the serving government and that other positions would be, like our department staffers, theoretically/largely immune to political interference. As for not prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or political views, I'm sorry to hear that's not the case. We take such human rights for granted here.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-18-2012, 02:20 PM
Our governmental executives have some abilty to employ certain unclassified people in their administrations. But most states employ people under a Civil Service law that makes them immune to the changes in the political winds. In fact, to fire a civil service employee usually requires a public hearing. And any one so fire would have the option of taking the state into federal court if a violation of civil rights were charged.
If the Teaparty got it's way the class actions would probably bankrupt the state of Tennessee and show the inhabitants what trouble ignorance of the law can bring.

Kaa
07-18-2012, 02:21 PM
Hmmm, interesting. I would have thought that Cabinet positions were appointments at the pleasure of the serving government and that other positions would be, like our department staffers, theoretically/largely immune to political interference.

Well, yes, there is a distinction between political appointees (extending rather below the Cabinet level) which come and go, and "professional staff" which stays. However discrimination issues apply equally well to employment at will ( = at the pleasure of) too.

Kaa

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-18-2012, 02:24 PM
Hmmm, interesting. I would have thought that Cabinet positions were appointments at the pleasure of the serving government and that other positions would be, like our department staffers, theoretically/largely immune to political interference. As for not prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or political views, I'm sorry to hear that's not the case. We take such human rights for granted here.

In my state, Ohio, all the secretaries, (what you would term ministers) are individually elected and can be from either party.

Kaa
07-18-2012, 02:25 PM
Only the political appointees... you can't do the same to career employees.

Quote please.

I don't think either sexual orientation or political views make one belong to a "protected class" in the US. State governments have additional constraints, but it's prefectly legal for a private employer to fire an employee for, say, being gay.

Kaa

ccmanuals
07-18-2012, 02:39 PM
Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

Flying Orca
07-18-2012, 02:50 PM
Here, the protected (i.e."illegal to discriminate on the basis of...") characteristics are:

(a) ancestry, including colour and perceived race;
(b) nationality or national origin;

(c) ethnic background or origin;
(d) religion or creed, or religious belief, religious association or religious activity;
(e) age;
(f) sex, including sex-determined characteristics or circumstances,such as pregnancy, the possibility of pregnancy, or circumstances related to pregnancy;
(g) gender identity;
(h) sexual orientation;
(i) marital or family status;
(j) source of income;
(k) political belief, political association or political activity;
(l) physical or mental disability or related characteristics or circumstances, including reliance on a service animal, a wheelchair, or any other remedial appliance or device;
(m) social disadvantage.


(...per the Manitoba Human Rights Code, and more-or-less the same across Canada.)

Paul Pless
07-18-2012, 02:54 PM
what is social disadvantage?

Kaa
07-18-2012, 02:56 PM
Here, the protected (i.e."illegal to discriminate on the basis of...") characteristics are: ...

I'm curious -- what does "social disadvantage" mean and what's the difference between "gender identity" and "sexual orientation"?

"Source of income" looks interesting, too :-)

Kaa

Flying Orca
07-18-2012, 03:28 PM
According to the Code:
"social disadvantage" means diminished social standing or social regard due to
(a) homelessness or inadequate housing;
(b) low levels of education;
(c) chronic low income; or
(d) chronic unemployment or underemployment

As for gender identity and sexual orientation, I would say that they could be considered different things in the context of transgendered individuals. I would not, for example, consider a trans-man and a non-trans lesbian to have the same sexual orientation, though they might both be attracted to women.

To be honest, though, I'm not really up on that stuff... and I probably should be, given that my niece shortly begins to transform to my newest nephew...

Kaa
07-18-2012, 03:38 PM
According to the Code:
"social disadvantage" means diminished social standing or social regard due to
(a) homelessness or inadequate housing;
(b) low levels of education;
(c) chronic low income; or
(d) chronic unemployment or underemployment



Ah, I see. So if your employers don't really want to hire an uneducated homeless guy who eats out of trash cans and hasn't worked for pay for the last twenty years, they have to get creative with reasons, right? :-)

Kaa

Flying Orca
07-18-2012, 03:46 PM
Ah, I see. So if your employers don't really want to hire an uneducated homeless guy who eats out of trash cans and hasn't worked for pay for the last twenty years, they have to get creative with reasons, right?

Right, assuming those things have no bona fide impact on his ability to do the job and he's otherwise the best qualified. Bear in mind that the system works through complaints and adjudication, so a complaint has to be made and evaluated as legitimate by the Human Rights Commission before it goes to adjudication. In over ten years of HR work for my employer I've seen two complaints, neither of which made it to adjudication.

Kaa
07-18-2012, 03:50 PM
Bear in mind that the system works through complaints and adjudication, so a complaint has to be made and evaluated as legitimate by the Human Rights Commission before it goes to adjudication. In over ten years of HR work for my employer I've seen two complaints, neither of which made it to adjudication.

You're lucky in that you've had no infestation of lawyers (including government-employed by the feared EEOC) spread out of control in your frozen wilderness :-)

Kaa

Flying Orca
07-18-2012, 03:52 PM
You're lucky in that you've had no infestation of lawyers (including government-employed by the feared EEOC) spread out of control in your frozen wilderness

I don't disagree in the slightest! We have been lucky enough to avoid the worst of the Excited States' wretched legal excess, in part because we have much more restrictive tort law.

John Smith
07-19-2012, 10:03 AM
Well, yes, there is a distinction between political appointees (extending rather below the Cabinet level) which come and go, and "professional staff" which stays. However discrimination issues apply equally well to employment at will ( = at the pleasure of) too.

Kaa

Ah but: the voters are free to vote unbound by these laws. In the land of the free, some are more free than others.

If a governor follows the law it can cost him re-election. Don't think this is limited to certain areas. The Muslim center in NYC caused quite a stir.

John Smith
07-19-2012, 10:05 AM
what is social disadvantage?
Born on the wrong side of the tracks.