Yes because the +9% of the unemployed in this country are only people from the hood (whatever the hell that means). Sit a year? and do WHAT? I know people with Law degrees from Georgetown and MBA's from Harvard who cannot get a job. And I will say it again: they shouldn't have to quit because their boss is an ass and is not only violating league rules, but it is likely violating Florida employment law.
If the conduct is not sufficient to support a claim, then by definition, it is not a "hostile work environment." Which Florida employment laws is he violating?? Do you have any evidence of anything other than being an asshole?
There's the legal definition of "hostile work environment" and then there's the reality of a sh!tty boss that make work feel hostile. The players did what they, as union members (albeit a new and potentially weak union), can do. They filed a grievance. According the the union, the USWNT players signed the grievance. Now, just like at other jobs, people keep working the best they can while the grievance travels through the established process. The players appear to be going about their business professionally (or trying to). Just like the rest of us in non-sports jobs who have bosses or coworkers that are mean and make our work life miserable. And given the nature of sports, if Borislow owns a team next year, players will sign to play on that team. There are an incredibly limited number of slots relative to the number of players who want to keep playing. Players play. That's what they do -- crappy coach/owner or not. To think otherwise is naive at best. The Bengals are an inept organization but still find football players willing to play. The Clippers have had full rosters.
I realize that, but she was throwing around legal terms throughout her posts and needs to be held to their proper meaning when she uses them.....
The person I was quoting, htide. "hostile work environment" "EEO or sexual harassment claim" "violating Florida employment law"
These are not terribly "legal" terms, unless you are completely unfamiliar with the law or don't read the paper. And, you said "she" so I wondered who you meant; unless you happen to know that H-Tide is a woman.
sometimes you have a demeaning an inept boss who owns or is related to the owner that creates a harsh work environment... 10 years ago you would have had a slew of jobs to pick from, now you have to suffer until you can find one Does not mean your breaking a law, but it makes a really uncomfortable work environment that you endure because you can't get paid as well elsewhere Meaning they stay for the money and the perks, knowing they won't find more money and arangements elsewhere... They want full season money for playing in half the games and most teams don't want to pay for many players that will miss half a season (ATL, even though they are on the low side of low)
Why is the default assumption but that htide is a man? And that only in knowing that to be untrue should one use she? Also, htide identifies herself as female in her profile. So, you know, there's that.
I don't mean to make a big bruhaha over nothing, but "hostile work environment" and "harassment" have legal definitions which do not equal their lay ones, and since she was referring to her own legal case, I wanted to make that clear. I've read many posts by htide over the years, and believe "she" is female. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry for assuming.
I seldom, if ever, look at anyone's profile, so had no idea H-tide is a woman. I don't really care about anyone's gender on here, I just happened to note that Lloyd said "she" and I was confused as to who he meant. I was wondering if Lloyd was referring to the union's rep or someone else; that's all. Really - no big deal.
My question remains: Why does referring to a poster as she confuse you to the point of thinking "she" meant someone other than another poster? Unless you assume "he" as the default "appropriate" reference for posters.
REALLY!!?? Are you kidding me? I didn't say it couldn't be another poster did I, I just didn't know who in hell he was referring to!!! The union's rep is a woman!!! FOR GOD'S SAKE, LET IT GO!
Why apologize for assuming someone is female? There's nothing wrong w/ being female so I don't see a good reason for a guy would get upset if someone on a message board refers to them as "she" Posters here (well, in other forums) assume I'm a guy all the time. I'm not offended but I do point out that I'm a "she" My goal is just to get folks to not have "male" as the default assumption for the gender of posters here. As for your point about the legal terms, I get what you're saying. I missed the part where htide referred to an existing legal case beyond this whole magicJack thing.
But based on your posts, if Lloyd Heilbrunn had said "he" you would have assumed he was talking about htide. That's my point which you are getting worked up over my making. I'm just trying to have a conversation.
No, you are making an assumption about that. I didn't know WHO he was referring to, and the fact that he invoked "she" made me think it could have been the union rep. That's all. Honestly and truly.
No, you are making an assumption about that. I didn't know WHO he was referring to, and the fact that he invoked "she" made me think it could have been the union rep. That's all. Honestly and truly. Kool aide - I don't think you've had all of your morning coffee yet ... (and I'm just having fun here.)
My apology would be for thinking I knew her gender, if I was wrong about it, not for thinkng a soccer fan could possibly be a female. God Forbid. I know you're female, and felt I "knew" the same about htide. We need more people using their real names on here to solve this "problem". Unless it's Sue.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n--1wR4L7zg"]Johnny Cash - Boy Named Sue (From "A Concert Behind Prison Walls" DVD) - YouTube[/ame]
Basically title 7 of the Civil rights act sets out the foundation for most states definition of unlawful harrassment as: Unwelcome verbal or physical conduct based on race, color, religion, sex (whether or not of a sexual nature and including same-gender harassment and gender identity harassment), national origin, age (40 and over), disability (mental or physical), sexual orientation, or retaliation (sometimes collectively referred to as “legally protected characteristics”) constitutes harassment when: The conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment; or A supervisor’s harassing conduct results in a tangible change in an employee’s employment status or benefits (for example, demotion, termination, failure to promote, etc.). What I noted in Dans emails were the threats about termination (and in fact did fire some people) based on particular conduct. As a leyman, it is my understanding that if that conduct is protected (ex. reporting a complaint to union or free speech) and he targeted them it could constitute unlawful retaliation. Also as a team of women they are already a protected class. the 11th circuit that includes FL has held that even conduct such as repeated use of the word bitch could constitute discrimination and a hostile work environment. Llyod is correct in that most conduct falls outside these protections, hence the push by many for workplace bullying laws. P.S. I'm a lady
Most lawyers privately call this the "asshole boss" defense. As in "He is not discriminating, he's just an asshole, who treats everyone that way".