As a young, white, Christian (non practicing) , heterosexual male I've never had the luxury of being able to claim discrimination any time I've been passed up for a job or promotion in favor of someone less qualified.
It is ridiculous for any of us to debate the merits of this case when we do not have all the facts, or even close to all. There are so many missing details. Maybe he was an ass that had a bad attitude. Maybe he had bad breath. Maybe his direct supervisor had it in for him. Maybe he didn't look good in blue or orange or green or black or whatever.
People do all sorts of reason because they are selfish, spiteful or just plain loco. You’re thinking rationally and fairly, but you have to consider that there are a number of people in this world who aren’t.
In June 2009, the EEOC reportedly found "reasonable cause" that Katz was denied promotions by Apple because of his age.
The EEOC is saying admittedly that Apple was discriminating against him because of his age. The EEOC is sanctioning age discrimination.
In June 2009, the EEOC reportedly found "reasonable cause" that Katz was denied promotions by Apple because of his age.
The EEOC is saying admittedly that Apple was discriminating against him because of his age. The EEOC is sanctioning age discrimination.
Noooo, they're saying they found reasonable cause, meaning it's worth an investigation. Reasonable cause could simply be this man's account of what happened lining up with what actually happened (with him not getting promotions while people 15 years younger did.) The intention behind everything isn't what's the reasonable cause.
Really, if you can't discern this sort of thing, don't comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU
"The guy should totally sue."
I agree actually. If anyone feels this way, and I mean genuinely feels this way, not just butthurt for getting fired, they should pursue legal action.
Since it's a civil matter I think it's more likely than not that this guy was discriminated against because I don't think someone files an EEOC complaint over a position they simply weren't interested in.
I suspect that his complaint has more to do with his firing that the actual Creative position. Especially if he has trouble getting a latter job. He may have been offered some kind of settlement but figures he can get more money out of a lawsuit. Who knows
Quote:
Second if the manager didn't know the guy had an interest in the position after applying for it multiple times he should've even just in passing....just trying to cover up discrimination.
You were there were you, so you don't know if he did you didn't apply. Maybe he mentioned it in passing but didn't follow up with a proper application.
Quote:
Otherwise he would've simply said we can't hire you for this position for XYZ reasons.
Assuming Apple is required to tell someone the reasons, how do you know they didn't. You don't. Maybe they did tell him and he didn't like the reasons. Maybe he refused to work weekends or evenings and was told he would have to. Maybe they needed people who knew programs he didn't. Maybe he didn't come off as a people person. He might think those were BS reasons, so in his own head he decided it was because he was old. Rather than th truth which was that the youngsters were more available, better with people etc
1. Age discrimination happens. Take it from me. I'll by 65 in March and I was laid off after more than ten years with a company while a person doing the same job who was in his thirties and had been hired a year earlier was kept on.
2. I seriously doubt that Apple corporate had anything to do with this. It's far more likely that this was a local issue.
3. I would lay odds that a LOT of older workers are being canned during this recession. It's the perfect excuse. When you consider that most of those older workers have also seen their 401K plans decimated by that recession, it's even more tragic.
Personally I manage in a large retail chain. I can tell you that discrimination allegations or an employee feeling their termination was unfounded is not uncommon. I had an employee apply for the same promotion 6 times, each time he applied he was told what he needed to work on inorder to be considered the next time the opportunity came around. In his mind he did not feel those were real opportunities for him and choose not to improve on those areas. In the end those same issues he did not improve on lead to his termination, and he filed an unfounded race discrimination case that was thrown out because we had the documentation from each conversation, etc.
I don't know anything about this case itself. But people do file complaints all the time. A lot of which are unfounded, and simply boil down to the employee not seeing their faults as being real issues. And their misunderstanding in thinking that in any non-union workplace that seniority counts for anything. Companies will always invest in the long term and people that are flexible, show a willingness to learn and adapt.
His opinion of less qualified is just that, HIS opinion.
"HIS opinion" is valid if, as a specialist, he was training newer employees how to do the job of a Creative. This happened all the time at the two stores I worked at.
Apple routinely would call upon the Mac Specialists to provide "one on one" training to customers; usually when the Creatives were overworked. And usually other Mac Specialists were the ones showing the ropes to the newer ones and NOT the creatives.
It Katz had been doing this work all along (extremely likely), and the newer guys whom he had interacted with were getting promoted in his place, of course he'd be pissed.
Furthermore, Apple's retail management are not hired because of their strategic thinking and effective resource management. The fact, the management didn't know he wanted the job, (or more precisely "didn't care") is par for the course for Apple's management style.
Generally, Apple managers are pretty mediocre in their execution of nearly all of their duties (with a few notable exceptions). It's no surprise that this is the case since Apple would rather hire former GAP and Banana Republic managers and "teach them Apple Culture" as opposed to growing their own management from the rank and file and "Teaching them Management".
How crazy do you have to be to forego a real career to work your way all the way up the ladder at GAP?? I can't imagine a worse hell. You have to be utterly insane to suffer through that torment. According to Apple, however, these people are perfect for executing managerial decisions at stores whose average yearly revenues exceed $40M.
My apologies to those of you who actually enjoy working up the ladder in retail and just now realized how much your life sucks...
So they thought it was enough to warrant further investigation, that they declared Apple Katz was a victim and Apple was evil, or something else entirely? You’ll have to define how the EEOC defines “reasonable cause” and what those reasons are.
Per my roommate who is a lawyer.
The first thing these offices (state or federal) do is verify the basic facts. In the case that would include the detail that all positions were filled by someone '15 years younger'. If that is true then further investigation could be warranted. If it turns out that one of the positions was filled with someone also in the 'protected class' then the notion falls apart.
That Florida's equivalent office refused to make a judgment could be damning for this gentleman. It implies that they found no backing for his statements. Possibly because there exists evidence that he was refused the post for sone other reason, and or let go for something non age related like attendance or break time abuse. And yes in the case of a fired employee they often exam that issue in conjunction with the complaint.
I'll reserve judgment until I see the NPS for all Specialist/Creative/FRS at that store for the relevant time period (the 1 1/2 years of the plaintiff's employment).
I really can't speak for how this guy went about his business but my last two trips to the Apple Store I have been greeted by older gentleman. Nothing against older people but these two sales reps didn't know a computer from a calculator. Such reps are not what people want to deal with.
I'll reserve judgment until I see the NPS for all Specialist/Creative/FRS at that store for the relevant time period (the 1 1/2 years of the plaintiff's employment).
????
I am going to take the guess that NPS is tied to that survey I get in my email after I buy something. And that the Creatives (and whateveer FRS means) have something similar.
That said I am not sure why you would make that comment. Unless you believe, as someone else mentioned, perhaps he was already teaching from time to time and getting lousy survey replies. Or even ones for his sales were lousy. I could see where, depending on the exact comments such things to block him from the position. But I wonder why that wasn't the reply by the supervisor. Saying that his job performance was documented as inadequate doesn't sound as dumb as saying that he never actually applied for the position (which could be true but sounds totally lame as a defense)
So, based on no evidence at all, you're prepared to jump in (wasting half a page with your impolite quoting BTW), and be the first on the thread to say it was Apple's fault?
Lawsuits are almost always "he said/he said" affairs. Just because a suit was filed doesn't make anyone guilty of anything. It's certainly far far too early to call.
... It's entirely believable that Apple would do something like this.
Why?
Apple has one the most inclusive, progressive hiring policies you'll find anywhere, but to you it's immediately, "entirely believable" that they would do this?
I tend to believe him myself also having worked a lot of retail jobs in the past and knowing what tin-pot dictators store managers can sometimes be. It's much more likely however, even if the guy is telling the truth, that the particular manager of the Florida store is the issue.
I find it amazing how without knowing anything about this guy, or much about the situation in general, everyone is immediately jumping on the "it's Apple's fault" bandwagon.
Edit: I see addabox has had almost the exact same ideas and was first with them.
A 40 year old plus iPad buyer might find it pleasant to work with someone closer to their own age as opposed to a slightly manic 22 year old who can barely disguise their impatience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
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.
All I know is that if I hear one more Apple whippersnapper say "cool beans", I am going to go berserk and beat them down with my walker.
1. Age discrimination happens. Take it from me. I'll by 65 in March and I was laid off after more than ten years with a company while a person doing the same job who was in his thirties and had been hired a year earlier was kept on.
Companies do this all the time. Generally, the more tenured employees are being paid more. So it's a cost savings to lay off the person who is making more in the same position. Of course, there may have been other elements, but just going off of what you said, it's common sense that it would happen that way. Given what you said, you can't just say that it was age discrimination.
Comments
Plz stop it. Jobs' ass is way too clean already.
What the hell are you talking about? How does not making a snap judgment translate into kissing Jobs' ass!?
People do all sorts of reason because they are selfish, spiteful or just plain loco. You’re thinking rationally and fairly, but you have to consider that there are a number of people in this world who aren’t.
In June 2009, the EEOC reportedly found "reasonable cause" that Katz was denied promotions by Apple because of his age.
The EEOC is saying admittedly that Apple was discriminating against him because of his age. The EEOC is sanctioning age discrimination.
The guy should totally sue.
In June 2009, the EEOC reportedly found "reasonable cause" that Katz was denied promotions by Apple because of his age.
The EEOC is saying admittedly that Apple was discriminating against him because of his age. The EEOC is sanctioning age discrimination.
Noooo, they're saying they found reasonable cause, meaning it's worth an investigation. Reasonable cause could simply be this man's account of what happened lining up with what actually happened (with him not getting promotions while people 15 years younger did.) The intention behind everything isn't what's the reasonable cause.
Really, if you can't discern this sort of thing, don't comment.
"The guy should totally sue."
I agree actually. If anyone feels this way, and I mean genuinely feels this way, not just butthurt for getting fired, they should pursue legal action.
Since it's a civil matter I think it's more likely than not that this guy was discriminated against because I don't think someone files an EEOC complaint over a position they simply weren't interested in.
I suspect that his complaint has more to do with his firing that the actual Creative position. Especially if he has trouble getting a latter job. He may have been offered some kind of settlement but figures he can get more money out of a lawsuit. Who knows
Second if the manager didn't know the guy had an interest in the position after applying for it multiple times he should've even just in passing....just trying to cover up discrimination.
You were there were you, so you don't know if he did you didn't apply. Maybe he mentioned it in passing but didn't follow up with a proper application.
Otherwise he would've simply said we can't hire you for this position for XYZ reasons.
Assuming Apple is required to tell someone the reasons, how do you know they didn't. You don't. Maybe they did tell him and he didn't like the reasons. Maybe he refused to work weekends or evenings and was told he would have to. Maybe they needed people who knew programs he didn't. Maybe he didn't come off as a people person. He might think those were BS reasons, so in his own head he decided it was because he was old. Rather than th truth which was that the youngsters were more available, better with people etc
team apple
2. I seriously doubt that Apple corporate had anything to do with this. It's far more likely that this was a local issue.
3. I would lay odds that a LOT of older workers are being canned during this recession. It's the perfect excuse. When you consider that most of those older workers have also seen their 401K plans decimated by that recession, it's even more tragic.
I don't know anything about this case itself. But people do file complaints all the time. A lot of which are unfounded, and simply boil down to the employee not seeing their faults as being real issues. And their misunderstanding in thinking that in any non-union workplace that seniority counts for anything. Companies will always invest in the long term and people that are flexible, show a willingness to learn and adapt.
His opinion of less qualified is just that, HIS opinion.
"HIS opinion" is valid if, as a specialist, he was training newer employees how to do the job of a Creative. This happened all the time at the two stores I worked at.
Apple routinely would call upon the Mac Specialists to provide "one on one" training to customers; usually when the Creatives were overworked. And usually other Mac Specialists were the ones showing the ropes to the newer ones and NOT the creatives.
It Katz had been doing this work all along (extremely likely), and the newer guys whom he had interacted with were getting promoted in his place, of course he'd be pissed.
Furthermore, Apple's retail management are not hired because of their strategic thinking and effective resource management. The fact, the management didn't know he wanted the job, (or more precisely "didn't care") is par for the course for Apple's management style.
Generally, Apple managers are pretty mediocre in their execution of nearly all of their duties (with a few notable exceptions). It's no surprise that this is the case since Apple would rather hire former GAP and Banana Republic managers and "teach them Apple Culture" as opposed to growing their own management from the rank and file and "Teaching them Management".
How crazy do you have to be to forego a real career to work your way all the way up the ladder at GAP?? I can't imagine a worse hell. You have to be utterly insane to suffer through that torment. According to Apple, however, these people are perfect for executing managerial decisions at stores whose average yearly revenues exceed $40M.
My apologies to those of you who actually enjoy working up the ladder in retail and just now realized how much your life sucks...
So they thought it was enough to warrant further investigation, that they declared Apple Katz was a victim and Apple was evil, or something else entirely? You’ll have to define how the EEOC defines “reasonable cause” and what those reasons are.
Per my roommate who is a lawyer.
The first thing these offices (state or federal) do is verify the basic facts. In the case that would include the detail that all positions were filled by someone '15 years younger'. If that is true then further investigation could be warranted. If it turns out that one of the positions was filled with someone also in the 'protected class' then the notion falls apart.
That Florida's equivalent office refused to make a judgment could be damning for this gentleman. It implies that they found no backing for his statements. Possibly because there exists evidence that he was refused the post for sone other reason, and or let go for something non age related like attendance or break time abuse. And yes in the case of a fired employee they often exam that issue in conjunction with the complaint.
I'll reserve judgment until I see the NPS for all Specialist/Creative/FRS at that store for the relevant time period (the 1 1/2 years of the plaintiff's employment).
????
I am going to take the guess that NPS is tied to that survey I get in my email after I buy something. And that the Creatives (and whateveer FRS means) have something similar.
That said I am not sure why you would make that comment. Unless you believe, as someone else mentioned, perhaps he was already teaching from time to time and getting lousy survey replies. Or even ones for his sales were lousy. I could see where, depending on the exact comments such things to block him from the position. But I wonder why that wasn't the reply by the supervisor. Saying that his job performance was documented as inadequate doesn't sound as dumb as saying that he never actually applied for the position (which could be true but sounds totally lame as a defense)
this sounds just like those geniuses that were suing mcdonalds because their burgers made them fat
team apple
no it doesn't.
Shame on you, Apple.
So, based on no evidence at all, you're prepared to jump in (wasting half a page with your impolite quoting BTW), and be the first on the thread to say it was Apple's fault?
Lawsuits are almost always "he said/he said" affairs. Just because a suit was filed doesn't make anyone guilty of anything. It's certainly far far too early to call.
... It's entirely believable that Apple would do something like this.
Why?
Apple has one the most inclusive, progressive hiring policies you'll find anywhere, but to you it's immediately, "entirely believable" that they would do this?
I tend to believe him myself also having worked a lot of retail jobs in the past and knowing what tin-pot dictators store managers can sometimes be. It's much more likely however, even if the guy is telling the truth, that the particular manager of the Florida store is the issue.
I find it amazing how without knowing anything about this guy, or much about the situation in general, everyone is immediately jumping on the "it's Apple's fault" bandwagon.
Edit: I see addabox has had almost the exact same ideas and was first with them.
A 40 year old plus iPad buyer might find it pleasant to work with someone closer to their own age as opposed to a slightly manic 22 year old who can barely disguise their impatience.
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.
All I know is that if I hear one more Apple whippersnapper say "cool beans", I am going to go berserk and beat them down with my walker.
1. Age discrimination happens. Take it from me. I'll by 65 in March and I was laid off after more than ten years with a company while a person doing the same job who was in his thirties and had been hired a year earlier was kept on.
Companies do this all the time. Generally, the more tenured employees are being paid more. So it's a cost savings to lay off the person who is making more in the same position. Of course, there may have been other elements, but just going off of what you said, it's common sense that it would happen that way. Given what you said, you can't just say that it was age discrimination.