  Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4221 Registered: 10-2003 |
Oh, boy. I hadn't heard about this one. This is one f%cked up metro: quote: | ||
Rid0617 Member Username: Rid0617 Post Number: 404 Registered: 03-2008 |
It is unbelievable that in this day and time people as ignorant as that manager still exist. I guess the only reason some people still live today is it's illegal to kill them. | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 1097 Registered: 04-2006 |
I guess my opinion depends on the number of witnesses that can confirm the story. if it is just the two, then I call them money grubbers... if its the whole staff then shame on the ignorant boss... | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 804 Registered: 03-2008 |
Assuming the story is true, the manager's an insensitive racist POS who needs to be reprimanded or terminated.. But why would the offended persons qualify for ANY cash reward? Were they fired by this guy, and trying to recoup lost pay, or are they just trying to cash in for the "mental anguish" of hearing someone else's words? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4229 Registered: 10-2003 |
They were obviously advised to try and cash in on "emotional distress" and were denied by that particular federal appeals court. As the article states, they are being sent back to collect nominal damages. It all really depends on which court you get. Anyway, the point is that a jury already decided that they proved their claim of a hostile work environment. I posted this, because I hadn't heard about this incident, and since it was local. I just didn't believe that some people are still trying to intimidate others with such an outdated racial reference and stereotype, both the plantation comment and the watermelon. It just seems plain stupid. That these employees are claiming emotional distress is a sideshow, here. Everyone claims emotional distress for everything, these days. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4545 Registered: 02-2004 |
I knew that Livonia and its WHITES ONLY PLEASANTVILLE enviroment is RACIST! The evidence is above the post. Promoting its NEO-NAZI ideology to the whole metro-Detroit region. | ||
Cloud_wall Member Username: Cloud_wall Post Number: 27 Registered: 02-2009 |
Quote from the decision: Sullivan called one employee "so black and ugly he would never have her work up front." Michigan needs to allow punitive damages. At least Costco is getting dragged through the mud; hopefully they feel some effects from this and fired Sullivan long ago. (Message edited by cloud_wall on March 07, 2009) | ||
Kelton Member Username: Kelton Post Number: 5 Registered: 10-2008 |
Danny - Do you have knowledge that Sullivan is a resident of Livonia? If so, please share. If all you know is what you read in the link, then please explain how the fact that this Costco is located in Livonia makes the Livonia environment racist. I live in Livonia. Even is he were to live here, you're saying we all are just like him? You're telling me I promote NEO-NAZI ideology? Whew! Kelton | ||
Roadmaster49 Member Username: Roadmaster49 Post Number: 126 Registered: 01-2008 |
Costco has some of the most progressive and employee friendly policies in this business sector. I highly doubt there was overt racism going on. But you claim it and there are money hungry lawyers who will pitch it. Racism sells. COSTCO has policies where you get paid more then it's competitors, you work hard but eventually make a wage and have benefits that rival the best jobs in a community. Not glamourous, but what you do with the money is your call. I am in a job that I am discrimiated againt. My supervisor shows favortism and admits it, but I have a family to feed and I put up with it. Soemtimes, to advance your specific personal goals, you have to suck it up, white or black. | ||
Foxyscholar Member Username: Foxyscholar Post Number: 291 Registered: 12-2007 |
Roadmaster49: I am in a job that I am discrimiated againt. My supervisor shows favortism and admits it, but I have a family to feed and I put up with it. Soemtimes, to advance your specific personal goals, you have to suck it up, white or black. Seriously: only this could be stated by someone who HAS NOT EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION (on a level enough to take action). Please do not compare your experience to someone else's. If you can "put up with it", then it must not be that bad. Or, what you're doing is you're (unconsciously) taking out your frustrations on other innocent folk, e.g. the family you have to feed. I hope that's not the case. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3415 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "Costco has some of the most progressive and employee friendly policies in this business sector." I can attest first handed, if this was the store at Middlebelt and 96, there was a very unfriendly tone in that store from the employees a few years ago. That jerk that worked in the bakery was downright nasty to people. Management had to know this was going on, and would cause one to believe, that attitude transcended into things like discrimination of some employees. | ||
Cloud_wall Member Username: Cloud_wall Post Number: 28 Registered: 02-2009 |
So, Roadmaster, am I summarizing correctly? 1) You don't believe the evidence. 2) If you get paid more than people in similar jobs, you shouldn't complain about racism. If there really was racism going on. 3) On second thought, you shouldn't complain about racist treatment if you have a job at all. Suck it up, unless you hate your own family. We can only hope other Costco apologists and representatives are as "progressive and employee friendly" as that. | ||
Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch Post Number: 1351 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: quote: What evidence? | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 212 Registered: 10-2006 |
Quotes: "A federal appeals court ruled today there was insufficient evidence to grant money to Lewis and Thomas for emotional distress." "Michigan needs to allow punitive damages." Lets get out the pitch forks and torches and drive more business out of Michigan. | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 1891 Registered: 11-2006 |
Foxy, Roadmaster has a right to his/her opinion based on his/her experience. "Seriously: only this could be stated by someone who HAS NOT EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION (on a level enough to take action). " Foxy, this statement is a bit strong. None of us can say that we know what someone else should or would or could do in their situation. And to yell it wasn't necessary, imo. You just don't know this person's life experience. | ||
Ferntruth Member Username: Ferntruth Post Number: 770 Registered: 11-2006 |
"Lets get out the pitch forks and torches and drive more business out of Michigan." If the accusations are true, Michigan doesn't need that kind of business. Just because it was decided that there was insufficient evidence for emotional distress, doesn't necessarily mean that discrimination didn't take place. | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 1293 Registered: 05-2006 |
The poor stiffs who were repromanded by that known racist Monica Conyers should sue her ass(not the city) for emotional distrss. Take some money out of her pockets, maybe she'll think twice before she opens her fat trap. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 213 Registered: 10-2006 |
Quote: "Just because it was decided that there was insufficient evidence for emotional distress, doesn't necessarily mean that discrimination didn't take place." So then call me a coward. | ||
Cloud_wall Member Username: Cloud_wall Post Number: 29 Registered: 02-2009 |
Right, Ferntruth. The Court of Appeals upheld the jury's finding that illegal discrimination occurred. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 214 Registered: 10-2006 |
Wrong, "A jury in 2007 ruled in favor of the three on their claims of a "hostile workplace." Not the same as illegal discrimination. Why cant we all get along?? | ||
Foxyscholar Member Username: Foxyscholar Post Number: 292 Registered: 12-2007 |
Kathinozarks: EXACTLY. You and Roadmaster should use my and your post as a MIRROR as to what NOT to do in terms of gauging comparative suffering. | ||
Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1365 Registered: 05-2007 |
^^^ Crafty Foxyscholar. It might get missed on some though. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4248 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: That must mean that the employees are lying. They made all of this stuff up. They should be prosecuted. You'd make a perfect California jury member. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 821 Registered: 03-2008 |
Workplace racism..define it. I'm a white guy, I've worked with folks of all flavors.. Back in my dealership daze, one of my parts managers was of the African American persuasion..he used to joke that he was gonna come to my house and rape all my wimminz, and I used to tell him to shaddup or I'd burn a cross on his lawn.. We were/are good friends..was racial humor over the edge? Earlier still, I was a porter (one of the stupid kids who washes your car and hopefully doesn't steal your change out of the console)..there were probably twenty or thirty of us porters working in this particular shop, and practical jokes were the norm..one guy, while happy to participate in the gags, ALWAYS threatened to cry "race" if he were ever the victim..as a result, he ended up being left to himself, which led him to cry "race" because nobody hung out with him. Who wants to play with a guy that runs and calls mommy every time they don't get to win? So you tell me..what's more "racist?" Batting ethnic jokes back & forth with a pal, or ostracizing someone out of fear for your own job? As to the original story..excuse my disbelief, but I've known a few VERY hardcore racist white folks..(not to mention a few of their opposite numbers as well) but I've never known one that would be dumb enough to actually say "you're too black & ugly to work out front" to someone who they would expect to offend. In todays workplace, this would be akin to stepping in front of a speeding Peterbilt and flipping it the bird because you don't like big trucks. | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 1893 Registered: 11-2006 |
I am a simple person. I don't know if I meant what you thought I meant, but I thought I knew what I meant at the time. Now I'm not sure if what I meant to say is what I really said or if I really said what I meant to say or if................sheesh, I'm going over to the food thread and read some recipes.  | ||
Cloud_wall Member Username: Cloud_wall Post Number: 30 Registered: 02-2009 |
Zrx, apparently not so dangerous after all. The jury and the Court of Appeals agree he said it. But since the employee's complaints of emotional distress were too "indefinite," there were no consequences whatsoever for the company. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 825 Registered: 03-2008 |
I never said there were consequences for the company..why should there be? CostCo didn't make the alleged comments, one of its employees did. What I said was that there would be immediate consequences for an employee who was proven guilty of racism on the job.. Are you telling me that you don't think this manager was somehow punished by CostCo? FWIW, he is a "former" manager now, according to news accounts..dunno if CostCo axed him or if he left on his own, but I'd bet it's the former. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2930 Registered: 08-2007 |
If one is going to sue for money for emotional distress, one must have specific proof of the consequences. You can't just "feel bad," you must suffer demonstrable damage, documented by medical professionals, and/or earning reports showing losses. To award damages absent such proofs is to change the standard to punitive damages. For that, one must show willful action (or inaction) by the company, not just the individual. I can't tell if any of the proofs were submitted, but clearly, what was submitted was not sufficient on appeal. To answer another point: quote: Wrong, "A jury in 2007 ruled in favor of the three on their claims of a "hostile workplace." Not the same as illegal discrimination. A racially hostile workplace is indeed a violation of civil rights law, both the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of Michigan and Title VII, the US Civil Rights Act. | ||
Detroitbred Member Username: Detroitbred Post Number: 256 Registered: 06-2008 |
For every one of those stories there are contrasting stories. My husband works for a local bank, and recently had to discharge a young black woman because of her work performance, tardiness, absenteeism, etc. She was given many chances to improve. She routinely ignored company rules and directives, passed her work on to others, and accused her supervisor and boss of "disrepecting" her each time she was spoken to. She had THRITY TWO ( 32 ) pages of warnings, because no one had the balls to do what needed to be done, for fear of having the race card played and being sued. Her last words as she went out the door was she was glad she had talked to an attorney. Maybe all the people she has worked for and with for the last umpteen years should sue HER for something? | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2936 Registered: 08-2007 |
For every one of these bad workers, there are at least 10,000 valuable black employees who are in the ranks of the unsung workplace heroes. Let us never forget, one anecdote about a jerk worker (a) has more than one side and (b) can be trumped by good worker stories that somehow never get spoken. | ||
Detroitbred Member Username: Detroitbred Post Number: 257 Registered: 06-2008 |
Who among us here has never worked for or with an asshole, a racist, a male chauvinist, a cheapskate, and slacker, etc. ? I have and I'm sure most if not all of you have too. If I didn;t like that job, I moved on. It never occured to me I should be suing for punative damages, etc. Not even when I was sexually harassed and touched inappropriately by my boss...I just found a better job. Silly me, I might be living high on the hog now....... | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2937 Registered: 08-2007 |
The thing is, when someone tells a black bad worker story, the tendency is for the listeners to try and match or top the story, so the bad news gets out and reinforces the image of black workers as bad whining opportunistic incompetents. As a long time civil rights investigator, I can tell you for a fact that there is more than one side to every story. The company line as repeated by one informant is one side, the story told by the aggrieved worker will shed additional light on the subject. That side, the company informant only reports from the company angle, so you have to actually talk the worker to get her perspective. From that, you usually get a couple or three lines of investigation. For example, rules were being enforced. What were the rules, and how were they being applied? Are there witnesses to indicate that the infractions were as the company says, or were not, as the worker says? Are there witnesses to indicate that other workers also violated the same rules? If so, are there records indicating the company addressed the violations in the same way? And so it goes, a typical day in the life of a civil rights investigator... I have found examples of unequal application of the rules by the same boss many times. In one case, the worker had an attendance problem and was disciplined according to the written policy. Investigation disclosed that several of his tardies were on days of severe snow. Further investigation showed that many workers were late on the same days, and the claimant was the only one disciplined. Hmmm... | ||
Detroitbred Member Username: Detroitbred Post Number: 258 Registered: 06-2008 |
I understand all that Gaze, just saying there are plenty of "stories". The pendulum swings both ways...for every black or white employee who has endured injustices, there are many employees who capitalize on their employers fear of being sued to keep a job they aren't entitled to and don't give a shit about doing well. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2938 Registered: 08-2007 |
I am just addressing the story you told, which seemed to point out how black workers are opportunistic whining incompetents. Of course there are many black workers who could sue and don't as well. | ||
Detroitbred Member Username: Detroitbred Post Number: 259 Registered: 06-2008 |
I told that story because I have personal knowledge of the event, how my husband went to work everyday, and whilte trytingto do his work, had to deal with that young lady. He gave her many chances himself ( even loaned her money to go to the dr. when she was sick, which he never got back incidently ). He genuinely felt bad abouth having to let her go, having been unemployed himself before, in addition to worrying that he might find himself having to explain in court someday. It is hard enough to do your job thesee days, without that added crap. I most certainly never said that all balck workers are opportunistice, whining incompetents, did I? | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2939 Registered: 08-2007 |
No, you didn't. It is just that those kind of stories invite that kind of thinking in the context in which it was given. The stories are always told in a context of minority employees taking advantage of the civil rights laws unfairly. As I pointed out before, this kind of story invites the listeners to pile on. While this kind of opportunism by the undeserving may occur, we all just need to realize it is not the norm. | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 748 Registered: 08-2007 |
quote: Why should a woman have to quit her job because the boss touched her inappropriately? Seems to me the boss ought to be the one out looking for another job. | ||
Detroitbred Member Username: Detroitbred Post Number: 260 Registered: 06-2008 |
Crumbled..I was much younger and naive...didn't realize I had other options, so I just left. Back then, no one would have taken my word over my "medical professional boss", even if I had tried to tell someone. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2942 Registered: 08-2007 |
The thing is, if people "just leave" without making a complaint, it leaves the workplace in the same state, and the law continues to be broken. Many many people do make that choice, but it is my strong contention that those who do file and thus open the company to investigation pave the way to creating better working conditions for those who remain there and those who follow. In Michigan, it is fairly simple to file a formal Civil Rights complaint if one believes they are being treated unfairly because of their race, religion, age, national origin, sex, marital status, height/weight, or physical or mental disability. Info available here: http://www.michigan.gov/mdcr At the outset, the company will be contacted to discuss resolution of the complaint and often, this triggers an internal review and rethinking of the actions that led to the complaint being filed. Companies have the opportunity to improve conditions that often no one realized were at issue until the complaint was filed. Sexual harassment has some unique requirements. If a person is being sexually harassed, they have a duty to notify higher ups in the company before filing a lawsuit. If a co-worker, then the supervisor must be notified, if the supervisor, then the person above them. Often a larger company will have a complaint process set up. If the person doing the harassing is the higher up, and no one is above them, then that duty is waived. Filing a complaint is not filing a lawsuit, and does not toll the time limits for filing a lawsuit. | ||
Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1376 Registered: 05-2007 |
quote: Amen! And thank you Gazhekwe for your thoughtful and educated insight. | ||
Detroitbill Member Username: Detroitbill Post Number: 693 Registered: 09-2006 |
Too bad Monica Conyers and her buds cant be sued for creating a hostile city living/working enviroment for the same reasons. Funny how there is a double standard on what one can say, when they are both equally as wrong. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2943 Registered: 08-2007 |
There is not a double standard. Discrimination is discrimination. A person could file a complaint under the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act under the Public Service section. 37.2302 Public accommodations or services; prohibited practices. Sec. 302. Except where permitted by law, a person shall not: (a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status. (b) Print, circulate, post, mail, or otherwise cause to be published a statement, advertisement, notice, or sign which indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status, or that an individual's patronage of or presence at a place of public accommodation is objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status. History: 1976, Act 453, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977. Constitutionality: The goal of the Civil Rights Act was to broaden the scope of equal protection rather than the standard of equal protection developed by the courts in the course of interpreting the equal protection provisions of United States and Michigan Constitutions.Civil Rights Department v Waterford, 425 Mich 173; 387 NW2d 821 (1986). This defines a place of public service: “Public service” means a public facility, department, agency, board, or commission, owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of the state, a political subdivision, or an agency thereof or a tax exempt private agency established to provide service to the public, except that public service does not include a state or county correctional facility with respect to actions and decisions regarding an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment. There is no US agency enforcing US laws against discrimination by a public service, but the US Justice Department does have jurisdiction over such and may be reached by contacting the US Attorney or the FBI in Detroit. |
