If I walked into a restaurant and, after the waiter came by, went to a manager and said, "I don't like my waiter. I want a different waiter." I assume that they would go along with it to keep my business.
You don't have to tell the manager, but generally they ask why to prevent future situations like this from happening.
If I change it to "I don't like my waiter because he's black. I want a different waiter that isn't black." does it become illegal for them to give me a non-black waiter? If they only have the one black waiter working at the time, is it still illegal?
And black is not something they can change for future situations.
I'm pretty sure that the second part there isn't the reason. I could request a waiter not named <waiter name>, which isn't legally protected, but is equally not something they can change.
It just seems like a really bizarre legal...thingy. It's okay for me to request a service without giving a reason, but once I give a reason the service becomes illegal.
...because life is, overall, a pretty stressful and difficult thing. Most of us who are harrassed by bigots or racists aren't entitled to anything.
There is a certain universal understanding that, though we are somewhat civilized, there will always be exceptions.
If you happen to find yourself in a situation that involves one of these "exceptions," don't automatically assume that someone will be there to accept the responsibility of your protection and well-being; and if a mistake is made, don't automatically assume that you're entitled to monetary compensation.
In life, many of us have had to put up with a lot of sh*t. This is like saying that it's perfectly reasonable to sue a school district, because of the constant harrassment you experienced in high school. And, yes, I went to high school with racists, too.
Obviously a pretty shitty one. The facts as indicated are prima facie discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 makes it explicit that "hurt feelings" - what you term "emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses" - do count as well as punitive damages. In a case of prima facie discrimination, you are pretty much guaranteed legal fees, and you don't have to show monetary damages for emotional distress or punitive damages. Lost wages because your emotional distress is not the sum and total of emotional distress as a legal concept.
Did you mean a legal degree in that your GED constitutes a legal document as opposed to a law degree? Because its hard to believe a lawyer would give legal advice based on the internet, which puts one in troubled waters in terms of professional ethics, let alone such obviously wrong claims.
...because life is, overall, a pretty stressful and difficult thing. Most of us who are harrassed by bigots or racists aren't entitled to anything.
There is a certain universal understanding that, though we are somewhat civilized, there will always be exceptions.
If you happen to find yourself in a situation that involves one of these "exceptions," don't automatically assume that someone will be there to accept the responsibility of your protection and well-being; and if a mistake is made, don't automatically assume that you're entitled to monetary compensation.
In life, many of us have had to put up with a lot of sh*t. This is like saying that it's perfectly reasonable to sue a school district, because of the constant harrassment you experienced in high school. And, yes, I went to high school with racists, too.
Actually, you have the right to not be denied work based on skin colour, as set out in more laws than I care to list. His employer denied him that right, so he is entitled to compensation while the employer is entitled to thanking god that the federal government isn't getting involved.
Obviously a pretty shitty one. The facts as indicated are prima facie discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 makes it explicit that "hurt feelings" - what you term "emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses" - do count as well as punitive damages. In a case of prima facie discrimination, you are pretty much guaranteed legal fees, and you don't have to show monetary damages for emotional distress or punitive damages. Lost wages because your emotional distress is not the sum and total of emotional distress as a legal concept.
Did you mean a legal degree in that your GED constitutes a legal document as opposed to a law degree? Because its hard to believe a lawyer would give legal advice based on the internet, which puts one in troubled waters in terms of professional ethics, let alone such obviously wrong claims. If you're going to make statements because you hate
You're going to criticize someone's law degree when you apparently can't even operate the internet and post your comment mid-sentence.
The Morgans should have been refused the first time they made this abhorrent request...
I wouldn't call that an abhorrent request. Calling room service and asking for them to send up a child and fetus stuffed into the uterus of a women, oven baked with rosemary and potatoes, on a plater... Now, I would call that an abhorrent request.
As we all know, misclicking invalidates your entire argument. Good catch, Loklar.
I think it's fair when you're going to condemn a person's entire education based on a couple of posts on the internet.
If someone claims that 2+2=5, I'm going to say any math degree they have is crap. I decided to drop the point that MM is only making these claims because he's a reactionary conservative Republican lobbyist who has a knee jerk reflex to deny the legal rights of those who have been discriminated against because it was not necessary, but I accidentally left in a sentence fragment.
As a side note this is the critical difference defining an ad hominem vs expressing disparaging sentiments. I said the argument was terrible, therefore the basis of the appeal to authority (the law degree) must not be worth much. Loklar said because I didn't edit my post correctly my argument must be false. Granted, no one called anyone a silly silly silly goose but that's the core of the fallacy
As we all know, misclicking invalidates your entire argument. Good catch, Loklar.
I think it's fair when you're going to condemn a person's entire education based on a couple of posts on the internet.
If someone claims that 2+2=5, I'm going to say any math degree they have is crap. I decided to drop the point that MM is only making these claims because he's a reactionary conservative Republican lobbyist who has a knee jerk reflex to deny the legal rights of those who have been discriminated against because it was not necessary, but I accidentally left in a sentence fragment.
As a side note this is the critical difference defining an ad hominem vs expressing disparaging sentiments. I said the argument was terrible, therefore the basis of the appeal to authority (the law degree) must not be worth much. Loklar said because I didn't edit my post correctly my argument must be false.
I made no claims as to the validity of your argument at all. I was just pointing out that you're some internet bully and was pointing it out in a comical way.
Unless you're a Florida State Judge, or Supreme Court, then you have no authority to claim anyone's legal interpretation to be wrong. So take your own advice and realize that you too are just an arm-chair lawyer on the internet.
The Morgans should have been refused the first time they made this abhorrent request...
I wouldn't call that an abhorrent request. Calling room service and asking for them to send up a child and fetus stuffed into the uterus of a women, oven baked with rosemary and potatoes, on a plater... Now, I would call that an abhorrent request.
Saying "I don't want to see any non-white people during the entierty of our stay at your establishment" isn't abhorrent in your eyes?
As we all know, misclicking invalidates your entire argument. Good catch, Loklar.
I think it's fair when you're going to condemn a person's entire education based on a couple of posts on the internet.
Giving unsolicited legal advice to a non-client is a pretty big no-no. Whether you think ModernMan did that or not is up for debate I guess, but in general "I'm a lawyer so listen to what I say" is probably a modestly dumb thing to say on a messageboard.
As far as emotional torts, I suspect "My employer is willing to discriminate against me because of my skin color in order to satisfy a handful of idiotic racist shits" could count as a hostile work environment. Employment discrimination is a big deal that one does not just "shrug off."
I made no claims as to the validity of your argument at all. I was just pointing out that [strike]you're some internet bully[/strike] I disagree with you and was pointing it out in a [strike]comical[/strike] way.
The Morgans should have been refused the first time they made this abhorrent request...
I wouldn't call that an abhorrent request. Calling room service and asking for them to send up a child and fetus stuffed into the uterus of a women, oven baked with rosemary and potatoes, on a plater... Now, I would call that an abhorrent request.
Saying "I don't want to see any non-white people during the entirety of our stay at your establishment" isn't abhorrent in your eyes?
I don't think that's what they said but I wouldn't say it's abhorrent. Not good, but abhorrent is too strong a word.
Unless you're a Florida State Judge, or Supreme Court, then you have no authority to claim anyone's legal interpretation to be wrong. So take your own advice and realize that you too are just an arm-chair lawyer on the internet.
Upon what authority to you make this denouncement of his authority?
Unless you're a Florida State Judge, or Supreme Court, then you have no authority to claim anyone's legal interpretation to be wrong. So take your own advice and realize that you too are just an arm-chair lawyer on the internet.
Upon what authority to you make this denouncement of his authority?
Obviously a pretty shitty one. The facts as indicated are prima facie discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 makes it explicit that "hurt feelings" - what you term "emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses" - do count as well as punitive damages. In a case of prima facie discrimination, you are pretty much guaranteed legal fees, and you don't have to show monetary damages for emotional distress or punitive damages. Lost wages because your emotional distress is not the sum and total of emotional distress as a legal concept.
The article in the OP made no mention of this waiter suing under the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It just mentioned that he was suing for a hostile work environment and for emotional distress. If you have more info about this case, great, but I was discussing what was in the OP, nothing more. Based on the (admittedly thin) details in the article, there's no real evidence that the plaintiff suffered any actual damages from this incident.
Did you mean a legal degree in that your GED constitutes a legal document as opposed to a law degree? Because its hard to believe a lawyer would give legal advice based on the internet, which puts one in troubled waters in terms of professional ethics, let alone such obviously wrong claims.
Where did I give anyone on this thread legal advice?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Obviously a pretty shitty one. The facts as indicated are prima facie discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 makes it explicit that "hurt feelings" - what you term "emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses" - do count as well as punitive damages. In a case of prima facie discrimination, you are pretty much guaranteed legal fees, and you don't have to show monetary damages for emotional distress or punitive damages. Lost wages because your emotional distress is not the sum and total of emotional distress as a legal concept.
The article in the OP made no mention of this waiter suing under the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It just mentioned that he was suing for a hostile work environment and for emotional distress. If you have more info about this case, great, but I was discussing what was in the OP, nothing more. Based on the (admittedly thin) details in the article, there's no real evidence that the plaintiff suffered any actual damages from this incident.
He was suing because of racial discrimination. When you sue someone for racial discrimination in the workplace its the Civil Rights Act. Basic Googling would have confirmed.
The lawsuit alleges that the Morgan family's request was entered into the hotel's computer and spread by word-of-mouth among the employees. The suit was filed under the U.S. Civil Rights Act.
The lawsuit alleges that the Morgan family's request was entered into the hotel's computer and spread by word-of-mouth among the employees. The suit was filed under the U.S. Civil Rights Act.
The SpecialistHappy FaceHappy PlaceRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Scalfin, sometimes I think you are a huge silly goose, but most of the time you are one of my favorite posters here...
What I'm surprised about is that this was from a british family. I mean I'm sure racism does exist in Great Britain, but these people sound like they were pulled from Mobile, Alabama ca. 1955
Edited for goosery...
The Specialist on
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
Double-posting a quote? You fail your Click Degree final exam again, PantsB!
What I'm surprised about is that this was from a british family. I mean I'm sure racism does exist in Great Britain, but these people sound like they were pulled from Mobile, Alabama ca. 1955
The customer's request was illegal. Following it was thus also illegal. You do not get a pass for doing something illegal just because your customer asks you to.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The customer's request was illegal. Following it was thus also illegal. You do not get a pass for doing something illegal just because your customer asks you to.
Damn, there goes my hope of getting a cabbie to start a high speed chase this weekend...
The customer's request was illegal. Following it was thus also illegal. You do not get a pass for doing something illegal just because your customer asks you to.
edit- I understood what HamHamJ was trying to express, nevermind. Could have been worded more clearly is all.
Double-posting a quote? You fail your Click Degree final exam again, PantsB!
To be fair, I am currently terminal serviced to a computer that I am PCAnywhere'ing to so I can open terminal services to four other servers, all while trying to avoid the huge pile of work that 2/3 of my group being out generates
I'm amazed that laws against discrimination don't have a "unless it's for the black guy's own good" exception, which is clearly what the manager was trying to do here - he just wanted to protect the waiter from the slurs the racist Brits would have hurled at him.
- Remembers that blacks were denied the vote under the guise of protecting them from having to make decisions beyond their mental capacity.
- Remembers that slavery was justified under the guise of providing food and shelter for blacks who would starve to death if left to fend for themselves.
- Remembers that segregation was justified under the guise that black students learned better among themselves, and would suffer from having to compete against white students.
- Looks at women in certain parts of the world today who are covered head to toe under the guise of protect them from men who apparently have no choice but to rape them as soon as a bare ankle was shown.
Oh. Right. That stuff.
BubbaT on
0
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
I find it kind of funny that if the family never mentioned the race it wouldn't be an 'issue'. I'm actually kind of surprised they did when it would've been just as easy as making up some BS excuse like "We don't feel he's nice enough."
Anyhow, a law was broken. Should the waiter be paid? Couldn't say. I find it hard to believe that it was THAT stressful to him, but maybe it was! In addition (if payment is required) the family should have to pay half or whatnot since, really, they're the ones who started it in the first place.
It sounds like the family didn't single this guy out, he's just the one guy from the staff that took a stand to say this shit was wrong.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
Yeah like.. I'm still not sure why he took it personally. I mean, even if he was the only black guy there, unless they were shouting out like "AUGH NO DARKIES" or some shit I don't see how he could claim he was 'shamed'.
Hell, I doubt any of the customers (not in ear shot) knew this was an issue. I mean, did he really want to serve them really badly and was so heart-broken he couldn't serve some racists? Just seems.. odd to me.
Anyhow, a law was broken. Should the waiter be paid? Couldn't say. I find it hard to believe that it was THAT stressful to him, but maybe it was! In addition (if payment is required) the family should have to pay half or whatnot since, really, they're the ones who started it in the first place.
Nah, they're not going to be on the hook for anything. You do have the right to refuse to be served by a black person, woman, gay person or whomever. Of course, the restaurant is perfectly within its rights to kick you out for demanding a white waiter.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah like.. I'm still not sure why he took it personally. I mean, even if he was the only black guy there, unless they were shouting out like "AUGH NO DARKIES" or some shit I don't see how he could claim he was 'shamed'.
Hell, I doubt any of the customers (not in ear shot) knew this was an issue. I mean, did he really want to serve them really badly and was so heart-broken he couldn't serve some racists? Just seems.. odd to me.
You're completely missing the point. He doesn't need to have been singled out for this to be wrong, and for him to file suit.
Anyhow, a law was broken. Should the waiter be paid? Couldn't say. I find it hard to believe that it was THAT stressful to him, but maybe it was! In addition (if payment is required) the family should have to pay half or whatnot since, really, they're the ones who started it in the first place.
Nah, they're not going to be on the hook for anything. You do have the right to refuse to be served by a black person, woman, gay person or whomever. Of course, the restaurant is perfectly within its rights to kick you out for demanding a white waiter.
I thought that's what we had conspiracy charges for.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
I meant more in the sense of if he's gonna argue he was shamed or made to feel bad or whatever argument he's using, can't he blame both the hotel AND the family? First the family for (indirectly?) putting forth he's less than a person or whatever and second the hotel for being like "We're ok with that."?
But that's only if he even has a good reason to do so. So far it just sounds like "These guys were racist, you didn't force me on them or kick them out, I am offended, give me money." Sounds kind of.. lame.
Yeah like.. I'm still not sure why he took it personally. I mean, even if he was the only black guy there, unless they were shouting out like "AUGH NO DARKIES" or some shit I don't see how he could claim he was 'shamed'.
Hell, I doubt any of the customers (not in ear shot) knew this was an issue. I mean, did he really want to serve them really badly and was so heart-broken he couldn't serve some racists? Just seems.. odd to me.
You're completely missing the point. He doesn't need to have been singled out for this to be wrong, and for him to file suit.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to file suit, I'm just saying I'd like to know how he came to be harmed. Being offended by someone's racist views does not strike me as being worth $75,000. Like, I wanna hear that he got harassed or was sent home and lost money or SOMETHING. I don't just wanna hear that he was offended. I get offended a lot, I don't sue for it.
It is not okay for a hotel to accommodate racist guests by segregating their workers, even if there is no provable harm to anyone's wages. I'm not really sure how anyone could possibly come to the conclusion that this is an okay thing. Further, the complaint that this guy is seeking too much in damages - the number is 75k for the record - is absolutely staggering. $75k is, as Modern Man puts it, nuisance money. In fact, it's the only thing about this case which leads me to doubt the validity of the waiter's complaint; he ought to go for way more if he's got a solid thing here. I mean, he's held this job for 15 years, so it isn't particularly difficult to argue that the job was worth 75 grand to the guy before he was told he's the wrong color for it.
Anyhow, a law was broken. Should the waiter be paid? Couldn't say. I find it hard to believe that it was THAT stressful to him, but maybe it was! In addition (if payment is required) the family should have to pay half or whatnot since, really, they're the ones who started it in the first place.
Nah, they're not going to be on the hook for anything. You do have the right to refuse to be served by a black person, woman, gay person or whomever. Of course, the restaurant is perfectly within its rights to kick you out for demanding a white waiter.
I thought that's what we had conspiracy charges for.
A conspiracy to commit what crime? Being racist in your personal life, even in groups, isn't a crime.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I meant more in the sense of if he's gonna argue he was shamed or made to feel bad or whatever argument he's using, can't he blame both the hotel AND the family? First the family for (indirectly?) putting forth he's less than a person or whatever and second the hotel for being like "We're ok with that."?
But that's only if he even has a good reason to do so. So far it just sounds like "These guys were racist, you didn't force me on them or kick them out, I am offended, give me money." Sounds kind of.. lame.
Being a racist on your own time isn't illegal. The family is within their rights to hate black people as much as they want.
Posts
I'm pretty sure that the second part there isn't the reason. I could request a waiter not named <waiter name>, which isn't legally protected, but is equally not something they can change.
It just seems like a really bizarre legal...thingy. It's okay for me to request a service without giving a reason, but once I give a reason the service becomes illegal.
There is a certain universal understanding that, though we are somewhat civilized, there will always be exceptions.
If you happen to find yourself in a situation that involves one of these "exceptions," don't automatically assume that someone will be there to accept the responsibility of your protection and well-being; and if a mistake is made, don't automatically assume that you're entitled to monetary compensation.
In life, many of us have had to put up with a lot of sh*t. This is like saying that it's perfectly reasonable to sue a school district, because of the constant harrassment you experienced in high school. And, yes, I went to high school with racists, too.
Did you mean a legal degree in that your GED constitutes a legal document as opposed to a law degree? Because its hard to believe a lawyer would give legal advice based on the internet, which puts one in troubled waters in terms of professional ethics, let alone such obviously wrong claims.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Actually, you have the right to not be denied work based on skin colour, as set out in more laws than I care to list. His employer denied him that right, so he is entitled to compensation while the employer is entitled to thanking god that the federal government isn't getting involved.
You're going to criticize someone's law degree when you apparently can't even operate the internet and post your comment mid-sentence.
I think it's fair when you're going to condemn a person's entire education based on a couple of posts on the internet.
Did PantsB claim to have a clicking degree?
Fair-enough. Haha.
I wouldn't call that an abhorrent request. Calling room service and asking for them to send up a child and fetus stuffed into the uterus of a women, oven baked with rosemary and potatoes, on a plater... Now, I would call that an abhorrent request.
If someone claims that 2+2=5, I'm going to say any math degree they have is crap. I decided to drop the point that MM is only making these claims because he's a reactionary conservative Republican lobbyist who has a knee jerk reflex to deny the legal rights of those who have been discriminated against because it was not necessary, but I accidentally left in a sentence fragment.
As a side note this is the critical difference defining an ad hominem vs expressing disparaging sentiments. I said the argument was terrible, therefore the basis of the appeal to authority (the law degree) must not be worth much. Loklar said because I didn't edit my post correctly my argument must be false. Granted, no one called anyone a silly silly silly goose but that's the core of the fallacy
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I made no claims as to the validity of your argument at all. I was just pointing out that you're some internet bully and was pointing it out in a comical way.
Unless you're a Florida State Judge, or Supreme Court, then you have no authority to claim anyone's legal interpretation to be wrong. So take your own advice and realize that you too are just an arm-chair lawyer on the internet.
Saying "I don't want to see any non-white people during the entierty of our stay at your establishment" isn't abhorrent in your eyes?
Giving unsolicited legal advice to a non-client is a pretty big no-no. Whether you think ModernMan did that or not is up for debate I guess, but in general "I'm a lawyer so listen to what I say" is probably a modestly dumb thing to say on a messageboard.
As far as emotional torts, I suspect "My employer is willing to discriminate against me because of my skin color in order to satisfy a handful of idiotic racist shits" could count as a hostile work environment. Employment discrimination is a big deal that one does not just "shrug off."
I don't think that's what they said but I wouldn't say it's abhorrent. Not good, but abhorrent is too strong a word.
Very clever
Where did I give anyone on this thread legal advice?
Rigorous Scholarship
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
What I'm surprised about is that this was from a british family. I mean I'm sure racism does exist in Great Britain, but these people sound like they were pulled from Mobile, Alabama ca. 1955
Edited for goosery...
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
Likely BNP voters.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
The extra post is for emphasis!
Damn, there goes my hope of getting a cabbie to start a high speed chase this weekend...
edit- I understood what HamHamJ was trying to express, nevermind. Could have been worded more clearly is all.
To be fair, I am currently terminal serviced to a computer that I am PCAnywhere'ing to so I can open terminal services to four other servers, all while trying to avoid the huge pile of work that 2/3 of my group being out generates
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
- Remembers that blacks were denied the vote under the guise of protecting them from having to make decisions beyond their mental capacity.
- Remembers that slavery was justified under the guise of providing food and shelter for blacks who would starve to death if left to fend for themselves.
- Remembers that segregation was justified under the guise that black students learned better among themselves, and would suffer from having to compete against white students.
- Looks at women in certain parts of the world today who are covered head to toe under the guise of protect them from men who apparently have no choice but to rape them as soon as a bare ankle was shown.
Oh. Right. That stuff.
Anyhow, a law was broken. Should the waiter be paid? Couldn't say. I find it hard to believe that it was THAT stressful to him, but maybe it was! In addition (if payment is required) the family should have to pay half or whatnot since, really, they're the ones who started it in the first place.
Stupid Brits!
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Hell, I doubt any of the customers (not in ear shot) knew this was an issue. I mean, did he really want to serve them really badly and was so heart-broken he couldn't serve some racists? Just seems.. odd to me.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Rigorous Scholarship
You're completely missing the point. He doesn't need to have been singled out for this to be wrong, and for him to file suit.
I thought that's what we had conspiracy charges for.
But that's only if he even has a good reason to do so. So far it just sounds like "These guys were racist, you didn't force me on them or kick them out, I am offended, give me money." Sounds kind of.. lame.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to file suit, I'm just saying I'd like to know how he came to be harmed. Being offended by someone's racist views does not strike me as being worth $75,000. Like, I wanna hear that he got harassed or was sent home and lost money or SOMETHING. I don't just wanna hear that he was offended. I get offended a lot, I don't sue for it.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Rigorous Scholarship
Being a racist on your own time isn't illegal. The family is within their rights to hate black people as much as they want.
Being racist as an employer is very illegal.