I just came across a very disturbing story.

With all the "possibly racist" stories that have been flying around lately, I think we may have a sure thing here.



Questions for debate:

1. Do you think, based on the story so far, this is a clear case of racial prejudice?

2. If you're unsure of any racial injustices here, do you think she still has a strong case for wrongful termination?

Bonus Question: Anyone care to take a wager on how soon Jesse and Al will take a trip to the Georgia-Pacific site?

1. Do you think, based on the story so far, this is a clear case of racial prejudice?

Um- duh, yah, no doubt about it, clearly. Cut and dried.

2. If you're unsure of any racial injustices here, do you think she still has a strong case for wrongful termination?

I hope she breaks the company personally. I think it is a shame that the company stockholders have to pay though- I think we need laws in this country that un-shield board members in cases like this- and allows them to take the homes and properties, without protection from bankruptcy, of all executive board members. It is a crying shame that the stockholders have to pay for bad management decisions like this.

Bonus Question: Anyone care to take a wager on how soon Jesse and Al will take a trip to the Georgia-Pacific site?

And this would be one of those places that they SHOULD be- white poeple may not like those two much, because, you know, they are so often right and all, make us all uncomfortable when they are (though the Tawana Bradley thing should have Al Sharpton being broke and in jail as well - gotta be consistant in my critisism here )- but Jesse and Al are very good at getting results, when obviously- the company should have fired those racist managers from the get-go. There wouldn't even be a media issue here if the managers had reacted correctly.

Maybe she was a bad employee- but the managers behavior was worse than bad- it was reprehensible.

I liken that to a case I was on as a union steward- we had this HORRID female employee with awful judgement and no boundries at my work place- she clearly needed be fired- she had held it together just long enough to get through the probationary period of one year- heck, I wrote her up myself a couple times- just to give management a bit of a hand in doing this correctly- firing her that is.

Well, we had another male employee that was smarter and more savvy- but just as bad, and really, worse, as he was threatening and hostile to women employees, and tried to intimidate male employees with threats of violence- and, of course, like most bullies, backed down when confronted.

He and this female employee had quite a bit of a personality conflict- so one day, he confronted her in the elevator, and grabbed her by the crotch, and said "your dumb *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** and this belong to me now"- and with no witnesses. The "line" employees never doubted for a second this happened- it had his M.O. all over it- but you know what? No one from management EVER asked us, and fired the woman. Okay- court case later- this lady is rich, and management talks about how the "union" forces them to keep bad employees - no we don't- it is just you don't know how to manage- had you even bothered to ask other employees, he AND she would have been fired, and saved a bunch of money for the hospital.

This case smells a bit like this- a personality conflict, bad managers, and a stupid upper management choice making scenario.

Had the company REALLY investigated this- just like the reporter did- and found out even a bit of this was true- then they should have fired all involved and, had it been me, I probably would have made sure a minority was this ladies boss, and make sure that person is a rock-solid good go-getter progressive management boss that dots the i's and crosses the t's- and THEN checked out to see if this woman had performance issues.

I gotta say, as horrible as the toilet thing is, I am far more disturbed by the pregnant monkey thing.

Growing up in northern Utah, I've known my fair share of racists, but even they wouldn't have done things like what was done in Georgia. They just wouldn't have hired her in the first place, then gone home to tell their families how "another one" tried to get hired again. I'm not saying that's right either, just trying to apply a little litmus test.

I'm usually initially skeptical of stories I hear about such overt racism, but this one has my blood churning. To treat anyone like that, regardless of race, gender, whatever, is truly disgusting.

1. Do you think, based on the story so far, this is a clear case of racial prejudice?

Yes. I think this is about as clear as its possible to get without a Whites Only sign.


2. If you're unsure of any racial injustices here, do you think she still has a strong case for wrongful termination?

I am sure, if the article is accurate that she has a case...


Bonus Question: Anyone care to take a wager on how soon Jesse and Al will take a trip to the Georgia-Pacific site?

I have no opinion on 'Jesse and Al'

Is there anything else to debate?

1. Do you think, based on the story so far, this is a clear case of racial prejudice?

That's for the EEOC to decide. The complaints should have gone there, not to HR or the papers.

If the allegations are true, then yeah, this is clearly against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section VII. I have that bit of trivia in my head because I'm writing articles about it for a gig.

I'm sure racism is still alive and kicking, also sexism, hatred of the French, hatred of the disabled, hatred of anyone not of the acceptable color, creed and so on.

Goes along with hatred for liberals, Democrats, anyone remotely connected to the 1960s, and I suppose if you like to eat real food instead of fast-food crap.

2. If you're unsure of any racial injustices here, do you think she still has a strong case for wrongful termination?

Wrongful termination is very hard to prove if you live in a right-to-work state, which is really saying that employers have a right to fire for any reason or no reason whatsoever.

Discrimination is easier to prove, and assuming the EEOC actually has any competent people in it, this will be expensive for the company. But then I think of the Bush administration and FEMA, which gives me cause to doubt that anyone's awake at the EEOC.