Florida man accuses Apple store of age discrimination - Page 5

Originally Posted by nht

Really? Because googling "constructive termination" indicates that the more common term is "constructive dismissal" or "constructive discharge". That is the term used in Title VII.

And it also appears to be a term used more for termination of a franchise than for employment. At least the case law using this specific term appears to be against wrongful termination of franchise agreements.

http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publicat...l3.asp?ID=3179

So the term is not necessarily as obvious as you claim although folks should figure out desired meaning in this context if they were used to the more common term "constructive dismissal".



Meh...given that it's a complaint that Apple violated Florida Civil Rights Act and therefore suing under Florida Statute 760.07 the odds are you are no more knowledgeable about Florida labor laws than anyone else in this forum even if you were a lawyer practicing in another state. Which you aren't.



And if you had such a strong grasp on the subject you might have pointed out that it might be more commonly known as constructive dismissal.



Face it - you called him out specifically and said he was clueless for not knowing what "constructive termination" was and to STFU.

Exactly how is that not to be taken offensively? If it were me, I wouldn't have said you were acting like a prick and risked the ban hammer or simply dropped you into the ignore list for being an asshat.

Playing all passive aggressive and "rational" after the fact doesn't make your comment any less offensive or trollish. You wanted a strong response and you got one. Unless you want to claim you don't understand human interaction at some "basic, fundamental level", or other equally inane excuse, you baited him into this stupid argument which you might think you have won.

Unfortunately I don't think the prize is what you expected.

Originally Posted by signal

Very well put. There's a certain kind of internet poster that really rubs me the wrong way, dressing up "you suck because you're teh stupid LOL" with freshman debating tactics.

Originally Posted by jragosta

http://www.rutan.com/publications/B8...4A650DA957.pdf

The phrase is used extensively in the law. In addition, even in cases where 'constructive discharge' is more commonly used, constructive termination is widely known to mean the same thing. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement
"Alternatively, the micromanager may attempt by this or other means to create a stressful workplace in which the undesired employees no longer desire to participate; when such stress is severe or pervasive enough, its creation may be regarded as constructive discharge (also known in the United Kingdom as "constructive dismissal" and in the United States as "constructive termination")."

So none of your rant has any validity.

Originally Posted by signal

Calling a perfectly reasonable rebuttal a "rant" is another one of those asshat tics that really seals the deal. I'm editing my ignore list as well.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Sorry, it wasn't even close to 'perfectly reasonable'.

He claimed that I was uninformed because I used the term 'constructive termination'. I gave a couple of citations showing that 'constructive termination' is perfectly acceptable terminology.

So he posted several hundred words attacking me (including telling me to stfu) - when it was clear that HE was the one in error.

That's a rant by any standard.

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

He never said you were uninformed. He said that that's not the only term for it, and implied it's lesser used. That doesn't mean he's in error.

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

Besides, a cursory review of your posting history has you debating on a wide variety of topics. Should we believe you're an expert in patent law, Chinese anthroplogy, and economic theory (to name a few)? While briefly reviewing your responses in said subjects, you made no claims based upon fact but instead lashed out with personal attacks ( http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...98#post1755398 ). I'm not going to try to claim some kind of moral high-ground here. I said you were a "fucking troll" in my first post on this forum, and the more I dig, it appears my assumption was correct.

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

So if you want to talk to peers of equal education, dedication, and interest in law --- I suggest you find another forum that meets your requirements, since you have attacked nearly every person who responded to you for being uninformed. If you'd like to participate in light discussion with people of varied backgrounds, then I'd suggest you hold yourself to the same standard as you're attempting to apply to others: Stay in the topics where you're an expert.

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

He never said you were uninformed. He said that that's not the only term for it, and implied it's lesser used. That doesn't mean he's in error.

Originally Posted by nht

He's an expert in Chinese anthropology? Neat.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Read what he wrote. He was clearly attacking me because I happened to use the phrase 'constructive termination'. Since 'constructive termination' is the phrase used by the Florida guy who filed suit against Apple (remember what this thread is all about?), I was simply using the term that was in play in this law suit. That's entirely reasonable and correct and his attack was sorely misplaced.

That's entirely different from someone posting who doesn't even have a clue about some of the most important issues in employment law.



Where did I claim to be an expert in all of those things? And where did I say that you had to be an expert to post?

Let's get the facts right: I stated that it was appropriate for a person to know enough about a subject to be able to discuss it intelligently and factually before they clutter the forum with posts. I do happen to know a wide range of subjects well enough to discuss them intelligently and factually. If you're limited to knowing something about one subject, that's your limitation, not mine.

If you can point to factual errors in what I've said, feel free to point them out. If you can show where I posted something about a topic that I was entirely clueless about, feel free to demonstrate it. Until then, your attacks on my are foolish.



I'd suggest that you learn to read.

I never suggested that only experts should be able to discuss the topic. I merely suggested that it would be better if people who didn't have a freaking clue what they were talking about kept their mouths shut. Maybe you've heard the saying "better to let others think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".

Bottom line is that the forum is most useful if people stick to topics they know enough about to be able to discuss them rationally and intelligently. What is the objection to that statement? Do you REALLY think that the forum is well-served by idiots posting inane, endless comments about subjects that they know absolutely zero about? Is that REALLY the position you want to be defending?

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

I like the spin you attempted at the bottom. Adhere to your own suggestion, and learn to read because you completely missed the point. You know damned well no one is trying to support the position of posting uninformed.

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

What you've proposed is that YOU somehow serve as the judge of whom is competent enough to post about a subject. You're welcome to do that for yourself, but not for everyone else. But until you have "moderator" next to your handle, keep your judgement to yourself, kid.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Wrong. LOTS of people are defending the concept that people should be able to post whether they know something about a subject or not.

Look at the facts. I suggested that people shouldn't post on a subject that they don't know well enough to have a reasonably intelligent and informed discussion. Not an expert discussion. Not knowing everything. Just knowing enough to be able to talk intelligently about it.

Then a bunch of people attacked me for having an 'elitist' and 'hypocritical' position and insisted that people should be able to post - no matter how ignorant they are.



Where did I say that I was supposed to serve as the judge? Answer: nowhere.

In fact, my posts were very clear that I expected people to stop posting if they didn't know something about the topic - not that I (or anyone else for that matter) should filter out posts that were uninformed.



It really amazes me how many people think that it's OK to post endlessly on subjects that they know nothing about. Sad.

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

And to reiterate it so maybe you can keep up: No one is suggesting uninformed, random posting. Not you, not me, not anyone (so far). Your strawman argument about that is completely offtrack. .

Originally Posted by a_greer

I have to say, I've never seen anyone working in an apple store who looked over 23, and not only that, they are all physically attractive too, ever seen a man with a receding hair line as an apple store employee? How about a lady with waist measurements not in "proper proportion" to chest measurements? I have not.

Apple wants pretty people, no different than any other modeling job, the difference, and the thing that will end up hanging them in this matter is that they don't call it what it is, modeling (read looking pretty to sell shit)- they classify it as tech support/advising/retail sales.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Really? Then please explain why so many people attacked me for simply suggesting that people should know something about a topic before posting? The fact that there are so many attacks, means that they obviously disagreed with the premise I posted (that people should know something about a topic before posting).

Originally Posted by Blastdoor

I certainly cannot comment on the merits of this case -- there's just not enough information.

But aside from this case, I suspect we are about to see an avalanche of these types of lawsuits throughout all industries over the next few years. The most self-centered, "entitled" generation in the history of the world is now entering old age. The babyboomers are going to take the idea of "grumpy old man" to a whole new level.

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

It wasn't "simply suggesting":

-----------------------------

Originally Posted by solipsism
Thank you. I wasnt aware of that phrasing.

Originally Posted by jragosta
I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting. 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law. If you don't know the phrase, you have no business posting on an employment matter.

-----------------------------

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

Your response was viewed by at least (3) people that I can count in the thread so far as a passive-aggressive attack, when it's obvious (to me at least) that Solipsism was actually saying "Thank you for informing me". No matter how you phrase it, if you post on a lively discussion and tell others to leave, you're viewed as a troll and will be responded to in kind.

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

Now if you wanted to participate in the discussion, a simple reply of " 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law." and adding an informative link would have been far more helpful. If you merely misinterpreted his original post, ok --- lesson learned for you. Many (including myself) have done it when you can't take body language and vocal inflection into account.

But all I've seen so far in your posts are vague descriptions of "should know something about a topic", which can only be determined by the reader. What standard would you apply? What certification or credential should a person have for each topic? Who, besides each reader, evaluates their level of expertise? I'm serious --- I'm really trying to understand what you mean, because maybe I've misinterpreted your genuine wish to promote intellectual discussion for pure asshattery.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Sorry, but if you see that as saying that I should be the one who expects to review posts for content, then you're very, very confused. I said exactly what I said - that people should know enough about a topic to discuss it rationally before posting.

If you think that total idiots who know nothing about a topic should be posting, that's your problem.



Where did I ask anyone to leave? I asked for people to restrict their posts to topics that they know something about.

As for the people who are bitching about my post, they appear to be just the kind of people who would be best served by listening to my advice. The ONLY people who are going to be offended by what I'm suggesting are people who routinely post about subjects they know nothing about.

And I really couldn't care less what they think.



I'm not applying any standard, nor am I suggesting that anyone but the poster should determine whether they're qualified (see how you keep coming back to the same lies?)

It's really very simple. If a poster doesn't understand a topic well enough to discuss it intelligently, they should keep their mouths shut. No one else should have to tell them anything - you'd think that people would want to be mature enough to talk about things they understand.

But, as you and your buddies have shown, that's apparently not the case. There are some people who think it's their God-given right to spew ignorance endlessly - no matter how much it fills these forums with falsehoods.

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

You're delusional. I never said once for idiots to post.

Originally Posted by jragosta

No, you just attacked me when I said that idiots shouldn't post. That amounts to the same thing.

Originally Posted by jragosta

I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting. 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law. If you don't know the phrase, you have no business posting on an employment matter.

It's not just you, but there's an endless stream of people posting here who have no clue what they're talking about. Just this week:
- People arguing that challenging the validity of a patent is 'unprecedented'
- People arguing that a sample of 65 can not ever deliver meaningful results
- People arguing that you can't sue for discrimination in a 'right to work' state
- Not to mention all the knee jerk reactions from people who automatically assume Apple is guilty every time someone complains about something

Look, people, these matters are legal and technical issues. Please do not post if you don't have sufficient knowledge of a subject to be able to discuss it rationally and factually.

Originally Posted by jmmx

However, I have to say that I have noticed how there are almost no older people working in Apple stores.