George Carlin Was Right Please Read All!!

2»

Comments

  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    moxie wrote:
    You're completely missing my point, which doesn't surprise me.

    Listen. There is a difference in defending yourself, and then jumping to unnecessary conclusions and making false accusations.

    The part I take issue with isn't him calling HR, but automatically thinking its a case of discrimination when he doesn't know that at all.

    where did he say he automatically thought it was discrimination? i didnt see that anywhere. what i saw was that to the best of his knowledge he had always been a good employee. he had been told he didn't have to interview and that he could have a job. then suddenly that was reversed and no explanation was given. since he could find no reason for this decision and they refused to give him one, it hardly seems problematic that he wondered if his disability played a role in it. even then, he didn't file a lawsuit or anything. he contacted their HR department to ask what was going on. it's not like he hired me to sue them into bankruptcy, and he probably could have.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    the wolf wrote:
    im in ohio, i have a few things going on that could help us retire by 2010 !!

    lol!

    i graduate in 09, then take the bar. ill get back to you ;)
  • GreenTeaDisease
    GreenTeaDisease Posts: 3,359
    mookie9999 wrote:
    Don't knock the underground think tanks that supermarkets across the country hold sacred! Who else would come up with $.69/lb for Bananas wherever you shop?!?

    hahaha I just meant that like, sometimes when you are working in a particular capacity, you are not expected to think and just do. it doesn't sound like his job at kroeger was one that required a lot of thinking because he worked there when he was very young. I'm saying that he might have been viewed as "difficult" or something.

    and I agree with soulsinging that they should have REASONS written there, not just nonrehirable, and if they don't, then it should be void and they should be made to consider hiring!

    BUT here's a BIG thing I don't get about this story, Malcom. Why did you expect discrimination if they hired you before? You had the same disability, and it sounds like you worked there for a while. Why would they hire you before but not now based on your disability??? AND ALSO...if you think it was all about discrimination, then why did you post about the owners not wanting critical thinkers? I think you know the reason you were non-rehirable, and you know it wasn't discrimination.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    GreenTeaDisease wrote:
    hahaha I just meant that like, sometimes when you are working in a particular capacity, you are not expected to think and just do. it doesn't sound like his job at kroeger was one that required a lot of thinking because he worked there when he was very young. I'm saying that he might have been viewed as "difficult" or something.

    and I agree with soulsinging that they should have REASONS written there, not just nonrehirable, and if they don't, then it should be void and they should be made to consider hiring!

    BUT here's a BIG thing I don't get about this story, Malcom. Why did you expect discrimination if they hired you before? You had the same disability, and it sounds like you worked there for a while. Why would they hire you before but not now based on your disability??? AND ALSO...if you think it was all about discrimination, then why did you post about the owners not wanting critical thinkers? I think you know the reason you were non-rehirable, and you know it wasn't discrimination.

    i think the critical thinking comment was more to the fact that they assumed they could bully him and get away with it.
  • moxie
    moxie Posts: 80
    in_hiding79 wrote:
    What I want to know is why you feel it necessary to be a real ASS to someone who was asking for advice?? Some of you people on this board need to get off your high horse and quit acting like you are fucking RIGHT about everything!!

    I was not being an ass. I just wasn't in the mood to sugarcoat things for him.
    I have dogs instead of children... I'd rather ruin my carpet than my life.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    moxie wrote:
    I was not being an ass. I just wasn't in the mood to sugarcoat things for him.

    god-fearing republican business owner who got screwed in a discrimination lawsuit?
  • moxie
    moxie Posts: 80
    soulsinging wrote:
    if so, why didnt they say that? it's HIS file, he has a right to know what's in it and why certain decisions were made.

    personally malcolm, i wish this had happened to you 2-3 years in the future after i had passed the ohio bar so you and i could both retire by 2010.

    I don't think they technically would have to show it to him, and I also don't think they have to give a reason for not rehiring him.
    I have dogs instead of children... I'd rather ruin my carpet than my life.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    moxie wrote:
    I don't think they technically would have to show it to him, and I also don't think they have to give a reason for not rehiring him.

    but their unwillingness to do so after telling him he had a job and didn't even have to apply is certainly enough to raise one's suspicion about just why they changed their mind.
  • moxie
    moxie Posts: 80
    soulsinging wrote:
    god-fearing republican business owner who got screwed in a discrimination lawsuit?

    Are you asking if I am a God-fearing republican business owner who got screwed in a discrimination lawsuit?

    yes, no, no, no
    I have dogs instead of children... I'd rather ruin my carpet than my life.
  • moxie
    moxie Posts: 80
    soulsinging wrote:
    but their unwillingness to do so after telling him he had a job and didn't even have to apply is certainly enough to raise one's suspicion about just why they changed their mind.

    Well sure, but that still doesn't make it discrimination. And if he goes around accusing them of that with absolutely no proof, he could be sued for defamation of character... technically.
    I have dogs instead of children... I'd rather ruin my carpet than my life.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    moxie wrote:
    Well sure, but that still doesn't make it discrimination. And if he goes around accusing them of that with absolutely no proof, he could be sued for defamation of character... technically.

    1) technically, no he couldn't. he could be sued, but it would never work. 2) he didn't go around accusing them of discrimination. he checked out his legal options and then went to their HR department and asked what was going on. inquiries and even filing lawsuits are not defamation. furthermore, defamation would not apply because kroger is a public entity and defamation is inapplicable in absence of intent. to prevail they would have to show he did it maliciously knowing it was false, and given the circumstances, there's no way they could prove it. they'd never survive a summary judgment. unless he totally fabricated a story and gave it to a newspaper to publish, he's not going to get sued for telling his friends or posting a blog saying kroger refused him a job becos he was disabled based on what happened here. and i'd say, in general, the facts he's provided here make his suspicion pretty reasonable. i think the fact that the second he mentioned legal inquiry into their decision they scrambled to toss him a job is rather telling. if they had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't have bothered.
  • in_hiding79
    in_hiding79 Posts: 4,315
    soulsinging wrote:
    1) technically, no he couldn't. he could be sued, but it would never work. 2) he didn't go around accusing them of discrimination. he checked out his legal options and then went to their HR department and asked what was going on. inquiries and even filing lawsuits are not defamation. furthermore, defamation would not apply because kroger is a public entity and defamation is inapplicable in absence of intent. to prevail they would have to show he did it maliciously knowing it was false, and given the circumstances, there's no way they could prove it. they'd never survive a summary judgment. unless he totally fabricated a story and gave it to a newspaper to publish, he's not going to get sued for telling his friends or posting a blog saying kroger refused him a job becos he was disabled based on what happened here. and i'd say, in general, the facts he's provided here make his suspicion pretty reasonable. i think the fact that the second he mentioned legal inquiry into their decision they scrambled to toss him a job is rather telling. if they had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't have bothered.


    I'm beginning to like you a lot soulsinging!! ;)
    And so the lion fell in love with the lamb...,"
    "What a stupid lamb."
    "What a sick, masochistic lion."
  • moxie
    moxie Posts: 80
    soulsinging wrote:
    1) technically, no he couldn't. he could be sued, but it would never work. 2) he didn't go around accusing them of discrimination. he checked out his legal options and then went to their HR department and asked what was going on. inquiries and even filing lawsuits are not defamation. furthermore, defamation would not apply because kroger is a public entity and defamation is inapplicable in absence of intent. to prevail they would have to show he did it maliciously knowing it was false, and given the circumstances, there's no way they could prove it. they'd never survive a summary judgment. unless he totally fabricated a story and gave it to a newspaper to publish, he's not going to get sued for telling his friends or posting a blog saying kroger refused him a job becos he was disabled based on what happened here. and i'd say, in general, the facts he's provided here make his suspicion pretty reasonable. i think the fact that the second he mentioned legal inquiry into their decision they scrambled to toss him a job is rather telling. if they had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't have bothered.

    He just accused them of discrimination right here. And if he goes around telling his friends and family that Kroeger discriminates, he could be sued. Technically it could result in Kroeger losing business because of his libelous actions. What are they teaching you in law school, anyway?

    And you agreed and disagreed with me on the same point in consecutive sentences.

    No he couldn't... oh, but yes he could. What?

    I just said he could be sued, I didn't say he'd lose the lawsuit.
    I have dogs instead of children... I'd rather ruin my carpet than my life.
  • justjoshingu
    justjoshingu Posts: 538
    did you tell them that you were THE malcolm X
    mean people suck!
    but nice people sw****w

  • in_hiding79
    in_hiding79 Posts: 4,315
    justjoshingu wrote:
    did you tell them that you were THE malcolm X


    hehehehehehe :p
    And so the lion fell in love with the lamb...,"
    "What a stupid lamb."
    "What a sick, masochistic lion."
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    moxie wrote:
    He just accused them of discrimination right here. And if he goes around telling his friends and family that Kroeger discriminates, he could be sued. Technically it could result in Kroeger losing business because of his libelous actions. What are they teaching you in law school, anyway?

    And you agreed and disagreed with me on the same point in consecutive sentences.

    No he couldn't... oh, but yes he could. What?

    I just said he could be sued, I didn't say he'd lose the lawsuit.

    becos anyone can be sued for anything. my point was he has nothing to worry about. becos there is no way his posting here or what he tells his friends would ever survive in a defamation suit brought by kroger. i just got out of a class covering this very subject about 4 hours ago. kroger is a public entity and as such has an uphill battle on ANY defamation. he has nothing to fear by going around posting messages here, writing blogs, or blabbing to everyone he knows that kroger screwed him becos there is no malice involved and it's an opinion. unless he invented a story and a bunch of facts that they can show are false and published somewhere that is not the internet (like he set up a public interest piece with the local news network), he is perfectly fine.

    i assume you are an attorney?

Categories