Comments on: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can make me rich

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:10:14 +0000

“The 8th circuit has just given retailers carte-blanche to block applicants with sketchy employment histories.”

No, the 8th circuit has just given carte-blanche to SUE retailers over employees with sketchy employment history. They haven’t given retailers carte blanch to do ANYTHING…except get sued – both by people who are mistreated by employees with sketchy employment history AND by applicants whom they deny employment for having a sketchy employmnt history.

Great system, ain’t it?

By: Xmas

Xmas — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:01:22 +0000

Ohhh…this has trouble written all over it.

The 8th circuit has just given retailers carte-blanche to block applicants with sketchy employment histories. I wonder what type of applicant would have a sketchy employment history?

By: Phaedrus

Phaedrus — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:41:27 +0000

I agree that the ruling’s emphasis on the employee’s resume is mystifying at best, but I think that the rest of the ruling makes quite a bit of sense. If you accept the plaintiffs’ factual claims (which of course you have to do when you’re trying to decide whether the case should be allowed to proceed), then McCrary didn’t just refuse to help a customer on the basis of race; when another employee then helped the customer, she butted in with an insult, then escalated to calling the customer a “fucking nigger”. If the courts allow the case to be thrown out at that point, they’re essentially saying that _as a matter of law_ no amount of verbal racism directed at a customer can qualify as “preventing” the customer from shopping there; the employee would presumably have to try to physically block the transaction somehow. That would certainly seem to be against the intent of the law, especially since Congress specifically expanded that law in response to the courts’ applying a narrow construction of it. And if it’s true (as the complaint also alleged) that the employee had been repeatedly abusive to customers in similar ways in the past, and that Dillard’s knew about it and failed to take action, then at some point the employer can and should become liable for the actions of the employee. If I were on the jury, I wouldn’t say that it was worth $500000 or $5 million — I’d probably be looking at something in the four-digit range at most — but it doesn’t seem remotely like the sort of claim that should be categorically barred from the courts.

By: John

John — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:12:04 +0000

It would be interesting to review the Greens credit history since this slur occurred to see if they have made any recent purchases from Dillards.

By: nevins

nevins — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:20:46 +0000

“the Greens, a black couple,” is this a bait and switch tactic?

Shopping a Dillards is hardly a necessary or vital function. Have we all given up our right to free speach, however repugnant it might be relative to polite social norms? The only thing McCrary violated was the implicit terms of her employment contract, where she is to suck up to the customer rather than make them feel bad with racial epithets. The Greens did what most offended people would have done, which was to choose not to enter into a business arrangement with Dillards. But why do they think that poor service constitutes a 5 million dollar reward, when persons of other races also poorly treated would expect nothing.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:31:58 +0000

I could be wrong, but about 20 years ago there was a series of court cases where companies got hit with large judgements because when responding to a request for references, they said that the person had been fired. A followup set of suits produced the result that if you said good things about the person, you were laible for damages from another person because the company inquiring about the applicant could deduce that since you didn’t say anything good, the person must have been fired or been a bad employee.

This led to the EEOC approved response of “Joe Smith worked here from this date to this date and is eligble (or not eligible) for re-hire.”

My point or question is “how in the heck does this court expect companies to get more information on a prospective employee when cases have gone against them for providing additional information?

By: Reformed Republican

Reformed Republican — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:39:41 +0000

Of course, if they had investigated the anomalies in the employment history, the previous employers would probably not have said anything negative about McCrary for fear of being sued.