EEOC Law under ethnic slurs section states "send her back" illegal

[daeler]

"Cortez, somebody said that's not her name … I don't have time to go with three different names, we'll call her Cortez," Mr. Trump said. "These congresswomen, their comments, are helping fuel the rise of a dangerous militant hard left."

This is one place where the Democrats really need to make a hard stand, They are being viewed as supportive of Antifa by not quickly and firmly denouncing actions made by that group.

 

[OscarLevant]

Just a moment. Is the President the "employer" of members of Congress?

In a lawsuit all that matters is who wins the hearts and Minds the jury and given the spirit of the law and common sense with whom you believe the jury would side

 

[OscarLevant]

Yes.

Other than citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights, no manager, supervisor, or co-worker has said "go back where you came from".

The President wrote:

"Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done."​

But the audience were shouting send her back over and over again and the president encouraged it.

That is simply wrong

Moreover it's an unfair thing to say aoc's from New York City by his own logic having called America the American dream is dead and American Carnage he should go back to New York City and fix New York City before he ran for president.

And Omar is a refugee from Somalia no one can expect anyone to go back to Somalia and fix it and only then can you flee persecution and apply for asylum in America that's patently absurd

 

[Condor060]

Many Republican senators and Congress persons (and right wing supporters) in the media have been questioned about whether or not what Trump said was racist and the vast majority of them had stated what Trump said was not, but according to EEOC law to say "send her back" is definitely racist.

Trump is in clear violation of the equal employer opportunity commission laws and could be sued.



END OF ARGUMENT

Couple of questions

1. Where does it say in the EEOC the term (Go back to where you came from) is racist
2. How does an anti discrimination law governing employer/employee terms have anything to do with the President of the US
3. When did an elected official become an employee of the President

Thanks

 

[daeler]

Couple of questions

1. Where does it say in the EEOC the term (Go back to where you came from) is racist
2. How does an anti discrimination law governing employer/employee terms have anything to do with the President of the US
3. When did an elected official become an employee of the President

Thanks

1. if you read the quoted part in the OP you can see where the EEOC is quoted on this topic.
2./3. it also has to do with co-workers and hostile workplace environments.

Hope that helps.

 

[Condor060]

1. if you read the quoted part in the OP you can see where the EEOC is quoted on this topic.

I did read it, where does it say the comment is a racist claim?

2./3. it also has to do with co-workers and hostile workplace environments.

Which doesn't answer the questions

How does an anti discrimination law governing employer/employee terms have anything to do with the President of the US
When did an elected official become an employee of the President

 

[daeler]

I did read it, where does it say the comment is a racist claim?



Which doesn't answer the questions

How does an anti discrimination law governing employer/employee terms have anything to do with the President of the US
When did an elected official become an employee of the President

Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct because of nationality are illegal if they are severe or pervasive and create an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, interfere with work performance, or negatively affect job opportunities. Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, "Go back to where you came from, " whether made by supervisors or by co-workers.

The law isn't just employer/employee it has to do with workplace environment and/or hostile co-workers
They are not employees of the president but that doesn't matter under that law.

Need anything else?

 

[Condor060]

They are not employees of the president but that doesn't matter under that law.

Need anything else?

Maybe you should visit the EEOC website

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

Your claim that since they don't work for the president it doesn't matter under the law is pretty laughable. Did you think the EEOC fights all racism claims in the country? Pretty funny.

 

[OscarLevant]

Couple of questions

1. Where does it say in the EEOC the term (Go back to where you came from) is racist
2. How does an anti discrimination law governing employer/employee terms have anything to do with the President of the US
3. When did an elected official become an employee of the President

Thanks

All of these questions are a matter for tort litigation and clearly the spirit of the law is grounds for a cause of action. To wit: the four in question are employees of the government and the president is the head of the government which effectively puts the situation within the purview of and the spirit of the law

 

[OscarLevant]

Maybe you should visit the EEOC website

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

Your claim that since they don't work for the president it doesn't matter under the law is pretty laughable. Did you think the EEOC fights all racism claims in the country? Pretty funny.

It's a matter for tort litigation.

 

[OscarLevant]

Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct because of nationality are illegal if they are severe or pervasive and create an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, interfere with work performance, or negatively affect job opportunities. Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, "Go back to where you came from, " whether made by supervisors or by co-workers.

The law isn't just employer/employee it has to do with workplace environment and/or hostile co-workers
They are not employees of the president but that doesn't matter under that law.

Need anything else?

Also we can reduce it this way they are employees of the government and he's the head of the government that puts it squarely within the purview of that law

 

[Condor060]

It's a matter for tort litigation.

Yeah, now its a tort litigation? What happened to the racist claim? Now the EEOC is going to handle Tort litigation or racist claims for anyone who files?

Whatevea

 

[daeler]

Maybe you should visit the EEOC website

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

Your claim that since they don't work for the president it doesn't matter under the law is pretty laughable. Did you think the EEOC fights all racism claims in the country? Pretty funny.

That quote is directly from the EEOC website. and if any co-worker( the president is either a supervisory position or based as a co-worker) causes harassment under that law it is grounds for a law suit.
You may not like it but there it is.

Is he guilty of this? Not sure would be up to a court to decide. If I was on a jury I would say he violated the law based on his comments.

 

[Condor060]

All of these questions are a matter for tort litigation and clearly the spirit of the law is grounds for a cause of action. To wit: the four in question are employees of the government and the president is the head of the government which effectively puts the situation within the purview of and the spirit of the law

WRONG lol They are elected officials and the President can't remove them, fire them, or control their actions.

Spirit of the Law, Yeah, lets run with that. Let me know when Democrats run to the EEOC and get that spirit of the law filed.

 

[daeler]

Also we can reduce it this way they are employees of the government and he's the head of the government that puts it squarely within the purview of that law

That is a possible interpretation. I suppose it would be up to the lawyers and the Jury to make a real determination in this case. It seems like a slam dunk case though.

 

[DamnYankee]

Many Republican senators and Congress persons (and right wing supporters) in the media have been questioned about whether or not what Trump said was racist and the vast majority of them had stated what Trump said was not, but according to EEOC law to say "send her back" is definitely racist.

Trump is in clear violation of the equal employer opportunity commission laws and could be sued.



END OF ARGUMENT

Farrakhan-Omar, nor any of member of the Squad are employees of DJT.

He's an American citizen and therefore the 1st Amendment applies.

 

[Condor060]

That quote is directly from the EEOC website. and if any co-worker( the president is either a supervisory position or based as a co-worker) causes harassment under that law it is grounds for a law suit.
You may not like it but there it is.

Is he guilty of this? Not sure would be up to a court to decide. If I was on a jury I would say he violated the law based on his comments.

Than show me where the president is in a supervisory position of another elected official. The ignorance of Liberals is just boundless.

 

[beefheart]

"may" violate EEOC laws

there is a HUGE difference between may, and DID

and proving that difference in a court of law is very hard

want to try again?

Tell you what....go ahead and start telling the minority women you work with to "go back to where they came from"

Let me know how that works out for you...

 

[beefheart]

Than show me where the president is in a supervisory position of another elected official. The ignorance of Liberals is just boundless.

Ah, look at you making excuses for boorish behavior that would never be tolerated in the work place.

 

[daeler]

Than show me where the president is in a supervisory position of another elected official. The ignorance of Liberals is just boundless.

Did you miss the part where it governs co-workers?

It depends on lawyers and jury, it could be argued as the head of government the President is a supervisory position. That's why I included the co-worker portion as well.

Did you call me a Liberal? If you did you would prove your own ignorance.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Many Republican senators and Congress persons (and right wing supporters) in the media have been questioned about whether or not what Trump said was racist and the vast majority of them had stated what Trump said was not, but according to EEOC law to say "send her back" is definitely racist.

Trump is in clear violation of the equal employer opportunity commission laws and could be sued.



END OF ARGUMENT

That is really an ignorant stretch.

Did you read the EEOC link on that?

I don't know why I ask. You obviously didn't. That part of the EEOC law is about a supervisor or coworker in a workplace.

Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct because of nationality are illegal if they are severe or pervasive and create an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, interfere with work performance, or negatively affect job opportunities. Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, "Go back to where you came from, " whether made by supervisors or by co-workers.
​

 

[tres borrachos]

Tell you what....go ahead and start telling the minority women you work with to "go back to where they came from"

Let me know how that works out for you...

I wonder what would happen if the CEO of IBM walked up to the cleaning lady who immigrated here from Mexico and told her to go back to where she came from.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I wonder what would happen if the CEO of IBM walked up to the cleaning lady who immigrated here from Mexico and told her to go back to where she came from.

That is what the law is meant for. Not political quips.

 

[beefheart]

I wonder what would happen if the CEO of IBM walked up to the cleaning lady who immigrated here from Mexico and told her to go back to where she came from.

The mental gymnastics of everyone denying what they know is true is just amazing, isn't it?

 

[Condor060]

Did you miss the part where it governs co-workers?

It depends on lawyers and jury, it could be argued as the head of government the President is a supervisory position. That's why I included the co-worker portion as well.

Did you call me a Liberal? If you did you would prove your own ignorance.

You can't claim an elected official who is not under the supervision of a president, does not work for the president, was not hired by the president, can't be removed by the president, doesn't report to the president, to be a co-worker. Thats just ridiculous.