If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   A Mississippi couple demanded that their newborn not be handled by African-American personnel. Did I say Mississippian? I meant Michigan. Stupid north   (cnn.com) divider line 333
    More: Stupid, African-Americans, Michigan  
•       •       •

14064 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2013 at 12:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



333 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-16 01:27:52 PM
Perhaps they were worried the kid's diapers would end up sagging.
/runs
 
2013-02-16 01:28:46 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: BumpInTheNight: Make racism illegal, seriously.  Its time to just end that bullshiat and let everyone get on with the future.  Make it illegal, imprison idiots who are blatant about it.  And make damn sure your black president is the one to sign the order, just for the lulz.

So, no 1st amendment?  No thanks.  Society is way better off allowing the much louder and vastly more prominent free speech rights of non-racists being allowed to counter the racist's speech.  Restricting all of our free speech rights because a few abuse it is dumb, unconstitutional, and highly reactionary.


Yah, I'm always jealous of how you Americans have such a decent and polite time without many incidents and assholes trolling one another simply because they can hide behind that pesky first amendment.  :P

/It was nice that time the Westboro baptist lawyers tried to come across the border and our anti-hate speech laws tossed them
 
2013-02-16 01:28:55 PM

Spad31: Uh...so what? Someone is suing because they weren't allowed to handle an infant? Really? Who gives a shiat what reasons the parents had? They're not required to explain their preferences. So they may have bigoted reasons...big deal. Racism happens across every culture. Get the fark over it. It doesn't have to ruin your day.


No.  She's suing because the hospital denied her the opportunity and the ability to perform her JOB based on her RACE.  Last time I checked, that's highly illegal, and being white is not a requirement to perform the job successfully with/ without accomodation.  And this is like HR 101, folks.

The racist douche...is a douche.  But the management in that hospital are a bunch of morans.

/for the record I would have assigned the douchebag's baby a flaming gay male nurse and told him to shove it.
 
2013-02-16 01:29:58 PM
This is an interesting situation.  The hospital cannot deny healthcare to anyone of any race, gender, religion, etc., but what law prevents patients from accepting healthcare from those "protected groups?"  Management should have been a little smarter with this.  They should have just told the nurse that the family didn't want her to provide care WITHOUT providing a reason.  That should be part of privacy laws.  If ANY provider made me feel uncomfortable (for whatever stupid reason...in this case, racism), I should have the right to request another provider.  If a patient refused treatment from, let's say, a male, then how is this different?  You can request a chaperone of the same gender or flat out refuse treatment if the provider is of opposite gender.

Yes, the people are racist, but I cannot see why the nurse just cannot move on.  Did she get paid while being on the clock?  Why would you even want to treat someone if they weren't going to cooperate and be assholes to you?  She doesn't deserve compensation because some patients offended her.
 
2013-02-16 01:30:04 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Ed Grubermann: Bit'O'Gristle: A nurse is suing a Michigan hospital for allegedly acquiescing to a man's race-based request that no African-Americans be involved in his baby's care.

The lawsuit accuses managers at Hurley Medical Center in Flint of reassigning Tonya Battle based on the color of her skin.

/Ok, sure, that is a asshole move on managements part, but you are their employee, the customer is who's paying, and you go where they tell you to go. it's not like you lost money or got laid off or were demoted. Just because you don't like the reason they moved you, doesn't mean its against the law, or you're going to be able to cash in. Nice try though, come back later if you actually have a valid discrimination complaint that cost you money.

And another ethically challenged dimwit joins the fray.

/LOL so i guess I'm free to sue the local city i live by for lowering the test scores for minorities on the police exams, where i as a white male have to score much higher to get the job.  That's not racism is it?  I mean, it only counts to blacks right?  I as a white male can't be discriminated against by them bending over to the NAACP and ACLU by making it much easier for minorities to get a job there, whereas i have to score on the test like farking Einstein.  fark her, she got moved, she didn't lose any money, and they have the right to choose who works on their kids, no matter how farked up the reason.  Is it racist? Of course it is. However, it's their right to be backwards ass rednecks and pick who they want working on their kid. But i guess i as a white male can't be discriminated, for if i say i have, that makes me a racist. Whatever.


If you are discriminated against by those unequal test score criteria then yes, you can sue the city. You can't be discriminated against based on race in public accommodation or employment.

I really doubt that happened though. Maybe you should provide some evidence?
 
2013-02-16 01:30:14 PM

had98c: mrsirjojo: Discrimination laws are quite clear. It is illegal to discriminate solely on the basis of race.

So Affirmative Action is illegal then?

It should be.


it is in michigan.

not that it make the racists and bigots on here any less racist or bigoted.
 
2013-02-16 01:30:32 PM

TiiiMMMaHHH: As far as black people being qualified to take care of children; in the couple's defense, I offer the three following articles to support their bigotry:

1. Chicago
2. Baltimore
3. Detroit


As for white people being qualified to take care of children, in the couple's defense, I offer the three following articles to support their bigotry:

1. Fundamentalist Mormons
2. Jersey Shore
3. West Virginia
 
2013-02-16 01:30:45 PM
yeah the hospital blew it , they needed to inform the father by law his request could not be honored and explain why.  Whether this is lawsuit worthy I do not know.

/To me it sounds like the buck got passed up the chain of command to someone who finally said okayed it probably will out checking into it properly as everyone below him in rank did not want to touch making that call.
 
2013-02-16 01:31:24 PM
Racism is a mental deficiency/disease. Mostly born of fear, but compounded by ignorance, it isn't limited by region. Ignorant cowards can be found almost anywhere.
 
2013-02-16 01:32:10 PM
The patient controls their medical care, including who touches them. If someone they specifically asked to not touch them touches them, its assault.
 
2013-02-16 01:33:03 PM
Sigh... posting fail

The hospital in no way has to acquiesce to this person's wishes.  If this impedes the normal workflow or results in a qualified person being replaced with a less qualified one, they are within their rights to tell them "objection noted, we don't care."  Unfortunately, few take this type of stand.
 
2013-02-16 01:34:00 PM

wontar: Why does everyone assume the father is white?


The apparent swastika might have something to do with it.
 
2013-02-16 01:35:44 PM
Someone telling people to "Keep African-Americans away from my baby" in Michigan?

I did swastika that coming.

/Got absolutely nothin'
 
2013-02-16 01:35:55 PM

BumpInTheNight: Ow! That was my feelings!: BumpInTheNight: Make racism illegal, seriously.  Its time to just end that bullshiat and let everyone get on with the future.  Make it illegal, imprison idiots who are blatant about it.  And make damn sure your black president is the one to sign the order, just for the lulz.

So, no 1st amendment?  No thanks.  Society is way better off allowing the much louder and vastly more prominent free speech rights of non-racists being allowed to counter the racist's speech.  Restricting all of our free speech rights because a few abuse it is dumb, unconstitutional, and highly reactionary.

Yah, I'm always jealous of how you Americans have such a decent and polite time without many incidents and assholes trolling one another simply because they can hide behind that pesky first amendment.  :P

/It was nice that time the Westboro baptist lawyers tried to come across the border and our anti-hate speech laws tossed them



I'd rather deal with the Westboro a-holes than some bureaucrat getting to decide what people are allowed to say.  Your "human rights commission" speech abuses are well known.  Rights shouldn't be based on the "feelings" of politically motivated authoritarians.
 
2013-02-16 01:37:04 PM
Sorry..... It doesn't matter where you live.

South of the Mason-Dixon line they are called "Rednecks." To the North? They are "Hill Billies." It doesn't matter where they live... The attitudes are still the same.

/Michigander
 
2013-02-16 01:37:22 PM
i309.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-16 01:38:31 PM

cman: Nabb1: cman: How is demanding that an African-American not handle your newborn considered to be "reasonable"? It isn't.

It's not, but did this nurse lose her job or lose wages or get passed over for a promotion? I'm trying to figure out what, apart from being rightfully pissed off, she suffered as a consequence that is actionable under discrimination laws. I wonder if she made an EEOC claim yet.

It creates an hostile work environment. Not only that the nurse would also suffer from embarrassment of being deemed not good enough to nurse due to her race.


"Hostile work environment" requires a pattern of conduct.  Maybe she'll be able to find one during discovery, but right now all she has is one faux pas.
 
2013-02-16 01:38:34 PM
Reminds me of once when i pulled over a carfull of black males one night. I worked in a area where there wasn't alot of black people, and i was kinda surprised that they were driving around a residential area in this small town at 3 am on a sunday morning. Anyway, they didn't have any brake lights, no lights at all on the back of their car, no working lights at all. So i pulled them over. The conversation went something like this.

Leo : "Good morning Sir, the reason i stopped you is because you don't have any brake lights on the rear of your car, no parking lights, in fact, none of the lights work at all. Totally dark. Can i see your driver's license, insurance, etc...

Driver : "This is bullshiat man, you're stopping us because we are all black." (his 5 friends agree verbally)

Leo : "Um...no, the reason i stopped you is because your vehicle is in violation, you don't have any lights on the back at all, your windshield is broken, you have no rear view mirror, none of you are wearing seat belts, you have junk piled up on your rear window, so its obstructed, and your vehicle tags are expired."

Driver : "fark all that, you're a racist!!"

Leo" Sighs....i need your driver's license, your proof of insurance, and registration. Now please."

Anywho..it degraded from there, ended up calling for another car, as there was six of them and one of me. The driver had a revoked license, no insurance, plus all the vehicle violations that he had. They had open containers of booze in the car, as well as one of those old 35mm film containers full of weed. Spend about 2 hours on that stop. 3 arrests for wants and warrants. So after all that...as they are loading these guys in the wagon, the guy turns to me and says, "farking cracker biatch, you are a racist punk." Sighs...so anyway, the point of this whole thing is....racism is ugly, and it's on both sides.

/and before you do..i know ..i know..csb
 
2013-02-16 01:38:36 PM
the is prejudice, influenced by racism.
the reasons (i don't think justification would be entirely appropriate) for the father's prejudice could be complex.
perhaps he was beaten by certain types
perhaps he was robbed by certain types
perhaps somebody in his family's history was victimized by certain types
wife or mother or sister or cousin assaulted or killed...
in any case, warranted or not, i don't believe the constitution gives us the right to tell him who to trust.
of course it is natural for most of us to be repulsed by that sort of attitude...
 
2013-02-16 01:38:53 PM

12349876: TiiiMMMaHHH: As far as black people being qualified to take care of children; in the couple's defense, I offer the three following articles to support their bigotry:

1. Chicago
2. Baltimore
3. Detroit

As for white people being qualified to take care of children, in the couple's defense, I offer the three following articles to support their bigotry:

1. Fundamentalist Mormons
2. Jersey Shore
3. West Virginia


See, people!  Trolling isnt a bad thing.  It provokes wit from the right people.  Im not actually racist.  It's just that black people suck.  Luckily though, they attack each other WAY more, and they don't travel well.  I'm safe up here in NE.  FOR NOW.....

/K, NOW I'm done.  I think.
//Time to catch me a cab.  I can do that.
/// OKAY OKAY, now I'm done.
 
2013-02-16 01:39:12 PM

ruinevil: The patient controls their medical care, including who touches them. If someone they specifically asked to not touch them touches them, its assault.


Agreed.  I think the hospital would rather see an EEOC complaint than a lawsuit from the patient.  If the nurse in question HAD provided care, the patients would have clear standing to file a complaint or lawsuit.
 
2013-02-16 01:40:06 PM

mrsirjojo: Discrimination laws are quite clear. It is illegal to discriminate solely on the basis of race.

So Affirmative Action is illegal then?


If Affirmative Action were discrimination solely on the basis of race then, yes, it would be illegal. That's one reason that racial quotas were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in 1978. Yet many uninformed people still believe that quotas and/or separate sets of rules for different races is what Affirmative Action means. It is not.
 
2013-02-16 01:40:29 PM

Coco LaFemme: Racists are everywhere, subby. You can't just assume the South is the sole proprietor of these very special people.


But wait. Farkers have told me for years, by inference, that only Southerners are racist, idiotic assholes. Notherners (except maybe Ohio), are universally enlightened, progressive, and liberal.

But, since this appears to have happened in 'flyover country', I guess the Fark mindset counts this place in 'teh South'
 
2013-02-16 01:41:26 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: mrsirjojo: Discrimination laws are quite clear. It is illegal to discriminate solely on the basis of race.

So Affirmative Action is illegal then?

/no..thats ok. We as white men can't be discriminated against. If we complain about that, we are obviously racist.


Principal bars white kids from tutoring program

AURORA, Colo. (CBS4) - A school principal said no white children were allowed at an after-school tutoring program,

The principal at Mission Viejo Elementary in Aurora sent a letter telling parents the program is only for students of color.


Andre Pearson [the Principal]."It's focused for and designed for children of color, but certainly, if we have space for other kids who have needs, we can definitely meet those needs,
 
2013-02-16 01:41:33 PM

Kyosuke: Really? Examples?


Any of the many cultures on Earth with no concept of race as most people have it. Just because a culture doesn't like outsiders doesn't mean they're racist, they just don't like outsiders. The most interesting example of a culture without racism is the Tuareg of Africa, it's a culture, a very old one, made up of pretty disparate ethnic groups. Because of that their view on outsiders is, as long as you're not showing up with an army, you're welcomed.

As for how they ended up that way, both of these people are Tuareg, if they met they'd think of each other the same way two Germans consider each other German upon meeting.

medias.photodeck.comwww.globaleye.org.uk
 
2013-02-16 01:42:30 PM

Lollipop165: NutWrench: [dl.dropbox.com image 600x360]

Is that a real pic? If so, awesome.


Apparently not.  But Snopes' explanation doesn't make a lot of sense, IMHO.
 
2013-02-16 01:42:41 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: NutWrench: [dl.dropbox.com image 600x360]

I've always wondered if that pic is legit and what the backstory on it was.


Shoop. http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/klaner.asp
 
2013-02-16 01:43:09 PM
Once in a while, we get a patient that refuses to be treated by a resident. Usually, the attendings will tell them this is a teaching hospital and they agreed to be seen by residents when they signed the consent for treatment the moment they walk through the door.

If they don't like it, they know where the door is.

Now, I find it hard to believe that hospitals can do that for residents but not for their african american staff
 
2013-02-16 01:44:14 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Nabb1: cman: How is demanding that an African-American not handle your newborn considered to be "reasonable"? It isn't.

It's not, but did this nurse lose her job or lose wages or get passed over for a promotion? I'm trying to figure out what, apart from being rightfully pissed off, she suffered as a consequence that is actionable under discrimination laws. I wonder if she made an EEOC claim yet.

/I agree, beyond being butt hurt, and rightly so, she doesn't have a case. She lost nothing, she was reassigned, not fired, not laid off. She lost not one cent. And we as American's have the right to choose who treats us in the medical field. Doesn't matter why they asked to have her switched out, they have that right. Even though they are racist douche bags.


I think the hospital deserves to be sued, just not necessarily for money awarded to the nurse. She does probably deserve some damages, as I can imagine that her work environment is substantially more uncomfortable than it was before...but the real point of any suit should be to force changes in the hospital's practice, a possible firing or two, and maybe a donation to charity. They did something wrong here and deserve to be punished for it.
 
2013-02-16 01:44:17 PM

PacManDreaming: I feel sorry for the kid. Gonna be a rough life being raised by a moronic prick.


How do you suppose the Dad got that way?
 
2013-02-16 01:44:23 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Surprisingly large amount of racists and trolls in this thread.


Unsurprising amount of people are considering the legal ramifications while others are concerned only with the moral ones.  There is a difference, and both merit discussion.
 
2013-02-16 01:45:33 PM

rga184: Now, I find it hard to believe that hospitals can do that for residents but not for their african american staff


Hospital should've refused to consent to what the parents wanted and told them if they have a problem with it, the hospital will gladly get a court order to tell the parents where to stick it. Because a minor is involved the hospital had a lot of latitude as to how to handle things. While an adult can discharge themselves against medical advice, trying to discharge a child against medical advice, can get very messy very fast.
 
2013-02-16 01:45:34 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Surprisingly large amount of racists and trolls in this thread.


The word you are searching for is 'number', not 'amount', dipshiat.
 
2013-02-16 01:45:37 PM
i880.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-16 01:45:44 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: I'd rather deal with the Westboro a-holes than some bureaucrat getting to decide what people are allowed to say. Your "human rights commission" speech abuses are well known. Rights shouldn't be based on the "feelings" of politically motivated authoritarians.


Said no one except the racists we don't tolerate, ironic eh? ;)
 
2013-02-16 01:46:15 PM
Dad would remove the kid from the hospital?
Fine. Let the kid die. One fewer set of stupid genes floating around the pool.
 
2013-02-16 01:46:29 PM

BumpInTheNight: Ow! That was my feelings!: BumpInTheNight: Make racism illegal, seriously.  Its time to just end that bullshiat and let everyone get on with the future.  Make it illegal, imprison idiots who are blatant about it.  And make damn sure your black president is the one to sign the order, just for the lulz.

So, no 1st amendment?  No thanks.  Society is way better off allowing the much louder and vastly more prominent free speech rights of non-racists being allowed to counter the racist's speech.  Restricting all of our free speech rights because a few abuse it is dumb, unconstitutional, and highly reactionary.

Yah, I'm always jealous of how you Americans have such a decent and polite time without many incidents and assholes trolling one another simply because they can hide behind that pesky first amendment.  :P

/It was nice that time the Westboro baptist lawyers tried to come across the border and our anti-hate speech laws tossed them


You didn't watch any of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission hearings, did you?
 
2013-02-16 01:46:36 PM
Battle's manager called her at home to tell her she would be reassigned -- and why, the suit says.

Wouldn't HIPAA bar that information being passed along?... and in a fight between HIPAA and Civil Rights Act of 1964, which side prevails?

/correct hospital response was: take yor crackerass baby somewheres else, then.
 
2013-02-16 01:47:17 PM

ReapTheChaos: I don't know why southerners get such a bad rep for being racist.  I grew up in the north but spent most of my life in the south, I've known way more racists up there than down here.


Stuff like this, I guess:
The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission was a state agency directed by the governor of Mississippi that existed from 1956 to 1977, also known as the Sov-Com. The commission's stated objective was to "[...] protect the sovereignty of the state of Mississippi, and her sister states" from "federal encroachment." Initially, it was formed to coordinate activities to portray the state, and the legal racial segregation enforced by the state, in a more positive light.

The Commission was created by the Mississippi Legislature in 1956 in reaction to the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Court held that racially segregated public schools were unconstitutional. The "sovereignty" the state was trying to protect was against federal enforcement of civil rights laws, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act, and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The membership consisted of 12 appointed and legislatively elected members, and the Governor of Mississippi, Lieutenan Governor of Mississippi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Mississippi and the Attorney General of Mississippi ex officio. The governor sat as the chairman. Its initial budget was $250,000 a year.
As the state's public relations campaign failed to dampen rising civil rights activism, the commission put people to work as a de facto intelligence organization trying to identify those citizens in Mississippi who might be working for civil rights, be allied with communists, or just tipped state surveillance if their associations, activities, and travels did not seem to conform to segregationist norms. Swept up on lists of people under suspicion by such broad criteria were tens of thousands of African-American and white professionals, teachers, and government workers in agricultural and other agencies, churches and community organizations. The "commission penetrated most of the major civil-rights organizations in Mississippi, even planting clerical workers in the offices of activist attorneys. It informed police about planned marches or boycotts and encouraged police harassment of African-Americans who cooperated with civil rights groups. Its agents obstructed voter registration by blacks and harassed African-Americans seeking to attend white schools."
The commission's activities included attempting to preserve the state's segregation and Jim Cro laws, opposing school integration, and ensuring portrayal of the state "in a positive light." Among its first employees were a former FBI agent and a transfer from the state highway patrol. "The agency outwardly extolled racial harmony, but it secretly paid investigators and spies to gather both information and misinformation." Staff of the commission worked closely with, and in some cases funded, the notorious White Citizens' Councils. From 1960 to 1964, it secretly funded the White Citizens Council, a private organization, with $190,000 of state funds. The commission also used its intelligence-gathering capabilities to assist in the defense of Byron D La Beckwith, murderer of Medgar Evers, during his second trial. Sov-Com investigator Andy Hopkins provided De La Beckwith's attorneys with information on the potential jurors, which the attorneys used during the selection process.


The records also revealed the state's complicity in the murders of three civil rights workers at Philadelphia, Mississippi; its investigator A.L. Hopkins passed on information about the workers, including the car license number of a new civil rights worker, to the Commission, which passed the information to the Sheriff of Neshoba County, who was implicated in the murders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Sovereignty_Commissi on
 
2013-02-16 01:49:06 PM
I think this is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations for the hospital.

Say they told the parents that they weren't going to follow their request and they can take the baby and go home. So, they take the baby home and for whatever reason, the baby on that day or the next becomes ill and dies. The couple can sue the hospital and say that the hospital refused to care for the baby as requested and as a result, the baby became ill and died. And we aren't talking about asking the hospital to give the baby untested medicine or do some questionable procedure. Only to make sure the baby is well enough to be sent home. People may argue about the racism problem but the couple was not refusing all medical treatment but service from African-American nurses. The couple still wanted treatment and if they were refused all treatment, it would have been the fault of the hospital. We aren't talking about a diner refusing service, here. We are talking about life or death treatment.

Honestly, I felt sorry for whoever had to make that call. They were cursed either way.
 
2013-02-16 01:49:07 PM

Vodka Zombie: Sure.  You guys have old fashioned racists in the South, but up here?  We've got Nazis.


^This^

Don't make any wrong turns in Howell if you have a passenger of color. Ever.
 
2013-02-16 01:49:11 PM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: But wait. Farkers have told me for years, by inference, that only Southerners are racist, idiotic assholes. Notherners (except maybe Ohio), are universally enlightened, progressive, and liberal.

But, since this appears to have happened in 'flyover country', I guess the Fark mindset counts this place in 'teh South'


Really? I'm not sure where you've gotten that.

Now, granted, fark derides a lot of the "SOUTHAN PRIIIIDEEEAH" as ignorant, racist, idiotic assholes, but that's generally when said 'southern pride' also involves, say, flying a confederate flag and arguing slavery had nothing to do with secession.
 
2013-02-16 01:50:20 PM

rga184: Once in a while, we get a patient that refuses to be treated by a resident. Usually, the attendings will tell them this is a teaching hospital and they agreed to be seen by residents when they signed the consent for treatment the moment they walk through the door.

If they don't like it, they know where the door is.

Now, I find it hard to believe that hospitals can do that for residents but not for their african american staff


the hospital might have had the right to tell him to take his wife and baby and gtfo. they are a business however.
when possible, i would avoid teaching hospitals anyway, especially in July.
 
2013-02-16 01:51:16 PM

camelwalk: Sigh... posting fail

The hospital in no way has to acquiesce to this person's wishes.  If this impedes the normal workflow or results in a qualified person being replaced with a less qualified one, they are within their rights to tell them "objection noted, we don't care."  Unfortunately, few take this type of stand.


It's enough to say, "Can't, we'd be sued."
 
2013-02-16 01:51:21 PM

Zasteva: Bit'O'Gristle: Ed Grubermann: Bit'O'Gristle: A nurse is suing a Michigan hospital for allegedly acquiescing to a man's race-based request that no African-Americans be involved in his baby's care.

The lawsuit accuses managers at Hurley Medical Center in Flint of reassigning Tonya Battle based on the color of her skin.

/Ok, sure, that is a asshole move on managements part, but you are their employee, the customer is who's paying, and you go where they tell you to go. it's not like you lost money or got laid off or were demoted. Just because you don't like the reason they moved you, doesn't mean its against the law, or you're going to be able to cash in. Nice try though, come back later if you actually have a valid discrimination complaint that cost you money.

And another ethically challenged dimwit joins the fray.

/LOL so i guess I'm free to sue the local city i live by for lowering the test scores for minorities on the police exams, where i as a white male have to score much higher to get the job.  That's not racism is it?  I mean, it only counts to blacks right?  I as a white male can't be discriminated against by them bending over to the NAACP and ACLU by making it much easier for minorities to get a job there, whereas i have to score on the test like farking Einstein.  fark her, she got moved, she didn't lose any money, and they have the right to choose who works on their kids, no matter how farked up the reason.  Is it racist? Of course it is. However, it's their right to be backwards ass rednecks and pick who they want working on their kid. But i guess i as a white male can't be discriminated, for if i say i have, that makes me a racist. Whatever.

If you are discriminated against by those unequal test score criteria then yes, you can sue the city. You can't be discriminated against based on race in public accommodation or employment.

I really doubt that happened though. Maybe you should provide some evidence?


/Just my word, and that they bypass the whole "who scored best" on the psychological, written, and physical tests by putting all applicants into a "pool" of prospective employees. Clever, and legal, but a obvious move to hire more minorities. And they came right out and said that the testing was lower for a minority than a white guy. Right to our faces. I told them that was bullshiat, and they said, "sue us", or apply somewhere else. Why else would you have a "pool"? Wouldn't you want the best scoring applicants, with the most education, training, experience, etc? Too fill the minority slots, thats why. Sad, but yes it really happened. I also called a department in florida to see if they were hiring. The Sgt. on the phone said "are you female, black, hispanic, or some other minority? Um...no..im white. He told me not to bother, that is all they were looking to hire. Just my experiences man, make what you want of them, just what ive seen and heard.
 
2013-02-16 01:52:04 PM

wellreadneck: You didn't watch any of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission hearings, did you?


Two guys tasked with figuring out ways to help Quebec be a little less xenophobic?  Sounds pretty boring.  Why mention it?
 
2013-02-16 01:52:53 PM

GreenAdder: ...he chooses to live in one of the most diverse cities in Michigan...

People choose to live in Flint? No way.

/Pure Michigan

 
2013-02-16 01:54:14 PM

Mrs. Beasley: Doktor_Zhivago: NutWrench: [dl.dropbox.com image 600x360]

I've always wondered if that pic is legit and what the backstory on it was.

Shoop. http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/klaner.asp


Rats. I was hoping it was real. Thanks!
 
2013-02-16 01:54:41 PM

TheOther: Battle's manager called her at home to tell her she would be reassigned -- and why, the suit says.

Wouldn't HIPAA bar that information being passed along?... and in a fight between HIPAA and Civil Rights Act of 1964, which side prevails?

/correct hospital response was: take yor crackerass baby somewheres else, then.


There doesn't seem to be any medically relevant information contained in their request - the father didn't say "Keep that black woman away from my baby because she triggers my PTSD."

It's also nothing at all like a religious exclusion, for those of you trying to make that argument.  You can argue that religious excuses in general are phony-baloney, and maybe they are, but they're also protected by law to some degree.  This kind of discrimination is not.
 
2013-02-16 01:55:27 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: A nurse is suing a Michigan hospital for allegedly acquiescing to a man's race-based request that no African-Americans be involved in his baby's care.

The lawsuit accuses managers at Hurley Medical Center in Flint of reassigning Tonya Battle based on the color of her skin.

/Ok, sure, that is a asshole move on managements part, but you are their employee, the customer is who's paying, and you go where they tell you to go. it's not like you lost money or got laid off or were demoted. Just because you don't like the reason they moved you, doesn't mean its against the law, or you're going to be able to cash in. Nice try though, come back later if you actually have a valid discrimination complaint that cost you money.


How do you know that being reassigned didn't reduce her income or demote her?  Maybe they moved her from something prestigious and good-looking on a resume like neonatal to scrubbing bedpans for the month the kid was there.  Or maybe her hours there were overtime and she just got cut back to nothing but regular hours.  The hospital made a personnel decision based on race - you can't do that.  They should have just said to the baby daddy "Sorry, sir.  We our scheduling is very tight and we can't accommodate your wishes.  Nurse Whoever is a highly trained professional who is more than qualified to take care of your child."

The best the hospitals lawyers can hope for is that the guy has got more than just a swastika tattoo - that he's a raging skinhead with a history of convictions of assault on African-americans.  At least then they could argue that they moved her from her own safety.  Of course, then, they'd also have to explain why they let a potentially violent man in their building or couldn't protect their employee...
 
Displayed 50 of 333 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report