Pre employment / not eligible for rehire

[sir812006]

Tell you what.

Since you don't believe anything I'm telling you, how about you call three lawyers of your choice, tell them exactly what you told us, and see what they tell you.

But I warn you, if you plan to come back and tell us that any of those lawyers have told you that you have any legal recourse other than to suck it up, be prepared to provide us with names and contact information that can be independently verified. Because if you don't, I'll call you a liar. Yes, I'm that sure that you have no case.

Im going to let the EEOC investigate get the intel on what happen behind the scene. I will keep you update. Might be a while tho because EEOC is slow of course.

 

[sir812006]

Awesome! Grab an attorney and sue the pants off them! You only fail at what you do not try.

Thank you. I got to fight for my protected rights!

 

[Zigner]

Thank you. I got to fight for my protected rights!

That's right! Put your foot down. Stick it to the man! Power to the people!

 

[sir812006]

That's right! Put your foot down. Stick it to the man! Power to the people!

Of course. People should just to the right thing and not try to get over on people.

 

[CTU]

The 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals agrees.

 

[Zigner]

Of course. People should just to the right thing and not try to get over on people.

Down with haters!

 

[CTU]

Down with haters!

What's wrong with taters?! They're awesome when they're baked and smothered in butter and sour cream!

Oh ... sorry, misread.

 

[sir812006]

The 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals agrees.

In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court decides that where an employer uses a neutral policy or rule, or utilizes a neutral test, and this policy or test disproportionately affects minorities or women in an adverse manner, then the employer must justify the neutral rule or test by proving it is justified by business necessity. The Court reasons that Congress directed the thrust of Title VII to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. This decision paves the way for EEOC and charging parties to challenge employment practices that shut out groups if the employer cannot show the policy is justified by business necessity.

 

[Zigner]

In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court decides that where an employer uses a neutral policy or rule, or utilizes a neutral test, and this policy or test disproportionately affects minorities or women in an adverse manner, then the employer must justify the neutral rule or test by proving it is justified by business necessity. The Court reasons that Congress directed the thrust of Title VII to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. This decision paves the way for EEOC and charging parties to challenge employment practices that shut out groups if the employer cannot show the policy is justified by business necessity.

You go, Perry Mason!

 

[sir812006]

You go, Perry Mason!

You think they still didnt break a law huh?

 

[Zigner]

You think they still didnt break a law huh?

Huh? Why do you say that? I'm rooting for you!
Go sir812006!!!

 

[sir812006]

Huh? Why do you say that? I'm rooting for you!
Go sir812006!!!

Right. Do you think there something there? Do you think they did some illegal rather it was knowing or unknownly?

 

[Zigner]

Right. Do you think there something there? Do you think they did some illegal rather it was knowing or unknownly?

I've already given my opinion.

But hey...you go! Stick it to 'em!

 

[sir812006]

I've already given my opinion.

But hey...you go! Stick it to 'em!

Base off the knew info i just told you with how they policy can be in question and the supreme court case i just posted. Whats your opinion based on that information?

 

[CTU]

I've already given my opinion.

But hey...you go! Stick it to 'em!

You are killing me today ... this is so awesome