Hugo: the attitude you take here seems overly dismissive and condescending toward an actual group of people with a real problem. I obviously don’t know every detail of the situation with this particular deputy court clerk, but there are most certainly a number of people who experience severe social anxiety and find that experience debilitating in everyday life. Using scare quotes to question the existence of such a condition and describing someone who allegedly sought to avoid a phobic situation as having “character defects” is incredibly rude.

Imagine referring to an employee who suffers from a physical disability in the same terms. What would you say about a quarry employee with a herniated disc who is accused of taking longer than necessary to do paperwork to delay his return to rock lifting duties? Would he have questionable “physical handicaps” and “character defects?”

Yes, there are plenty of valid areas for debate about the duties of employers, employees, and the government in these situations. The current situation can create near-impossible situations for employers while not doing enough to help employees with disabilities in other cases. But I don’t think dismissing and mocking people with disabilities is a very good starting point for that discussion.

It would not apply in this case. Unlike about 100% of the time Nazi Germany is invoked, this was actually a legitimate use of a horror as a similar circumstance to what was described, i.e., whether one would want to live in a country where something was legal for a number of years.

If the government wants to create opportunities for such people,they can offer incentives to employers ready to work with them, rather than playing “Gotcha” on ordinary employers trying to maintain safe and productive conditions for customers and employees.

1. I submit we have the laws because minorities were discriminated in the workplace for no legitimate business reason. You might claim otherwise, but the record in the 1950s and 1960s supports my position. Yes, at some time the laws should end, but when they should end (or should have ended) is debatable.

2. I cannot define equally. However, I can define discrimination. I can also say that discrimination based upon race, gender, national origin, and age is insidious. As for set-asides and the like, their the purpose of them is to remedy past discrimination. Again the record of this country justified set-asides at one point. Yes, at some time they should end, but when they should end (or should have ended) is debatable.

3. I have litigated a number of discrimination cases (on the side of the employer). In each, the burden was on the claimant to prove discrimination.

I do not dispute that business owners have a huge regulatory burden. That is not an issue. The issue is whether the burden (or any burden) is justified. I am not taking a position on this point. I am taking the position that society has a role in ensuring its citizens are not discriminated against on the basis of illegitimate factors, such as race, age, gender, and national origin.

Why do you think we have the laws in the first place?\

Because legislatures were convinced that they knew better how to run companies and make decisions better than people who actually do. Because someone convinced some elected group of people that they had the right to say to a business owner “we will tell you who and how you can fire someone.”

The government created some non-existent right of employment and armed with that falsehood, deprived the rights of businesses to run their concerns as they see fit.

And, yes, the government does have the right to ensure all of its citizens are treated equally.

Define “equally.” While that may sound like a silly question, people may have equal opportunities, but not equal abilities. If I fire someone because they can’t are aren’t doing the job, that termination is not based on “equal opportunity,” but the outcome of that opportunity.

Secondly, the government itself doesn’t treat people “equally.” Set asides and points for being a part of a certain class or group when awarding a governmental contract is hardly treating people “equally.”

Third, if you want to claim that the government has a right to ensure that all of the people are treated equally, why are there protected classes to begin with? The problem is that the government requires different standards for termination based upon the claims of different class members.

Finally, the burden of proof is on the employee to show that the employer acted because of race, not the employer to prove the action was a justifiable business decision.

You keep saying that, but in reality it doesn’t work that way. I suspect that you have not actually been involved on a case where an former employee claimed discrimination. Once the claim by the employee has been made, it is always up to the company to disprove the claim and to prove they acted in a manner that the government approves of. The government puts tremendous burdens on businesses for record keeping and other disciplinary actions in order to prove their actions were sound (according to the government) while there is no such requirement for the employee.

Even if the charge of discrimination is disproven, the company has still endured costs and lost production in defending a claim that was not true.

I believe that for the most part, people who run a business should be required to hire people on the basis of equal opportunity. If the worker doesn’t work out – for almost any reason – the business owner has the right to end the employment. Instead of that happening, we have seen the rights of business owners gradually reduced and voided until the government runs the business.

Dem,

So, I take it that you would have no objection to living in a society where slaverly was legal, as it was during most of the first century of the existence of the US?

Why do you think we have the laws in the first place? Because employers were making decisions primarily on the basis of race and then considering qualifications. Perhaps you can argue that, 50 years later, we are past that. I don’t think that is the case. We still have idiots who advocate racial seperation. And some of those idiots are employers.

And, yes, the government does have the right to ensure all of its citizens are treated equally. As I wrote before, the failure to do that will eventually result in civil unrest. It is a matter of good public policy.

Finally, the burden of proof is on the employee to show that the employer acted because of race, not the employer to prove the action was a justifiable business decision.

But to be clear, yes, I would repeal laws forbidding “discrimination” on the basis of pregnancy. It would have almost no practical effect, as the vast majority of employers would not adopt the sort of policies you fear, and your doomsday scenario would never materialize.