🚀 go-pugleaf

elliott@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Alex Elliott) wrote:
>On 3 Apr 1996 23:13:59 -0700 Paul Ciszek (pciszek@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>
>> Equality has nothing to do with it.  Certain groups are designated
>> "minorities" (I put it in quotes because women are anything but a
>> minority) and given certain protections, quotas, etc.  By definition,
>> each of these "minorities" must exist in contrast to some other group
>> NOT considered a "minority".
>
>The term you are searching for is "suspect class".  Every sexual 
>orientation non-discrimination law I have seen clearly states that it 
>prohibts discrimination based on orientation without setting any 
>particular orientation as a suspect class.  They also specifically 
>prohibit quotas.
>

I think everyone understands that, however, that is not the practice in
the US today.  Although the EEOC says it does not have quotas, if you
are sued because of "discrimination", then what they look for is how many
of the suspected class do you have.  If you do not have the number that
is the "norm", then you are guilty.  Period.  I have been thru this many
times.  Some of my previous companies would never let me get rid of 
employees who never came to work, because they needed that "quota".  
Also, when hiring, I was told that we need some members of the suspect 
classes in the organization.  The problem was only white males were 
applying.  I had to delay hiring someone for 9 months until we got a "ok" 
suspect class and I watched 7 excellent candidates go by.  That is 
discrimination.  That is what happens every day.  That is why so many 
people are against "new" suspect classes.

>Sure he can.  There is currently a court case where some guy is suing the 
>Hooters restaurant chain about not hiring him as a waiter because he 
>doesn't have big breasts.  It's a really straight-forward use of the 
>gender non-discrimination laws.
>

We will see how the courts rule on this one.  I betting against the male 
and for Hooters.


>A straight white male could use *exactly* the same legal tactic.  
>However, it seems that the people doing the firing are most often 
>straight white males so it is admittedly much more unlikely to prove 
>that they have some sort of bias against straight white males.
>

Again, when the EEOC comes in, they will find the "norm" number of white 
males (straight or not) and conclude there is no discrimination.



Chuck Kelley