Does younger mean MORE qualified? I doubt it. Does a youngster who finds himself in a hiring capacity mean he is more qualified to judge who is more or less qualified? Maybe he would just like to hire all his friends. That seems more likely the case. Apple has their "young, hip" image to project. You rarely see more mature experienced people working in a retail setting on the front lines...
yes, apple 'hello, i am mac' You look like that guy in the commercial? we want you.
you look like the guy that says 'i'm a pc'? forget it.
maybe they should change to match their leader? lets all go for the crazy, bald, bird-like, thin-death look.
I'd like it if I was able to run a business and discriminate against applicants for whatever reason I saw fit. That'd be nice.
Under the law you CAN discriminate against applications (or employees) for a nearly infinite number of reasons.
As long as you don't discriminate against them for a legally prohibited reason, discrimination is OK (actually, it's a positive thing - wouldn't you rather have employers discriminate against dangerous or incompetent employees?)
I haven't read every last post here - and I'm not sure who'll read this one - but I notice a lots of the posts in this thread are either hostile to the plaintiff or defensive on Apple's behalf.
It's true that Apple has deep pockets, and that's 9/10 of the reason they are sued numerous times a day. But here's my perspective on Apple's retail age discrimination:
Apple retail (and many others, like A&F) is consciously a hip, attractive, youthful environment for selling. I don't care if that's true.
But when it comes to the management of the stores, it is structured so that older workers are almost never advanced to management. Just one of the ways Apple gets around this: they hire young managers from other retailers to avoid promoting qualified workers internally.
Qualified, in my own case, meant that I came to Apple with nearly 20 years of management and entrepreneurial background, including time as a technology COO. I'm a fanboy, and was willing to change my career radically to start at the bottom as a part-time Mac specialist.
My first full month in the store, I was the top salesperson by the key metric (and Apple measures everything): my sales per hour. I asked the store manager what it took to be promoted and he told me: "You have to work here a year." That was the first of many lies I encountered.
In two-and-a-half years with Apple retail - which I loved - I watched every managerial opening around me filled by younger, less experienced, less effective, newer employees, despite my top sales numbers, enthusiasm, product knowledge, work history, and any other factor that could have shaded in my favor. At one point I was full-time and given an "interim" management (keyholder) position. Our store was thriving but a new manager came in, took away my key and my management responsibilities, cut my pay and sent me to another store to work part-time. I left soon after; I'd gotten the message. I was in my mid-40s.
I don't know all the fact in the case from this news item. Proving age discrimination is a near-impossibility, unless there's a smoking gun (an email that explicitly says, "don't promote this guy, he's too old," for example). But there is a pattern of age discrimination at the Apple stores, and it's sad. As a stockholder, I think it's bad for the bottom line too, when they lose or underutilize talent. I hope Apple addresses this - not all of its customers are youngsters, either.
Under the law you CAN discriminate against applications (or employees) for a nearly infinite number of reasons.
As long as you don't discriminate against them for a legally prohibited reason, discrimination is OK (actually, it's a positive thing - wouldn't you rather have employers discriminate against dangerous or incompetent employees?)
Illegal discrimination:
Age
Sex
Race
And so on
Legal discrimination:
Competence
Experience
Personality
Prior work history
And, legal in most states:
The color shirt they're wearing
Their eye color or hair color
Presence of tatoos or piercings
And so on....
I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role (Arnold Schwarzenegger would not get picked to play Annie and Shirley Temple would never get picked to play the terminator). and same goes for modeling agencies, look at those stereotypical stock photos in corporate HR glossy team building mags that they give out in huge corporations: can a photographer put up a job post for models and specify race, age gender and such needed to make sure the picture looks "diverse enough"?
edit, back on topic: could apple claim that "image" or "setting a scene" is a reason to do this kind of discrimination the same way that modeling agencies and casting directors do? Someone in this thread mentioned A&F and other hip stores, surely there is some case law in this area, what about case law for dudes suing Hooters for not getting waitress jobs?
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.
No worries. Work in some of the "creative industries"... I'm sure your heterosexuality will hold you back plenty.
We don't have all the facts so no one should be making any kind of judgments. Perhaps it was about his age. Perhaps it was not. Perhaps the gentleman is wrong about his contention that those picked were un or under qualified. Perhaps he was passed over due to his availability to work the needed number of hours and/or actual hours of the day required. Perhaps he was passed over due to his personality. When you are working one on one with someone who could be a bonafide computer idiot for an extended period, personality would matter
I completely agree. I happen to be 60 and when I was about 55 and applying for jobs or consulting work, I definitely got the feeling that on occasion, I was rejected because of my age. But that also might be simply paranoia -- it's possible I didn't "sell myself" appropriately. The fact is that discrimination is usually hard to properly evaluate, unless it's a matter of pay parity or something similar.
It's certainly possible that younger managers didn't feel comfortable working with someone older and discriminated against this guy. Or, it's possible that this guy was a cranky and lazy worker who did a lousy job -- we simply don't know. However, the manager not knowing that this guy applied or wanted a more senior position is somewhat suspect.
Discrimination lawsuits are relatively hard to pursue these days unless you're claiming discrimination and a member of at least two groups subject to discrimination: like you're above 50 AND you're a member of a minority group. Or you're disabled AND gay. Etc.
The question is whether records were kept as to this employee's performance. If he received annual reviews that were positive, but he was fired after he pursued the more senior position, then he actually has a strong case. Managers frequently make this mistake: they give positive reviews because they don't want to confront their subordinates and because they don't want to screw someone out of a raise, but it comes back to haunt them when they want to get rid of someone. Most large companies have a policy where if an employee isn't performing well, they generally have to receive two warnings in writing, then be placed on "probation" or the equivalent, where they are given a fixed amount of time to improve their performance. Only after that can you fire them and it all has to be comprehensively documented. Companies adopt those policies so that they don't get lawsuits like this one.
A few years ago, I had a case where a lower level employee (who was hired by someone else) was clearly incompetent. She "dotted-line" reported to me, although I was a consultant, so I had limited hire/fire authority. But then she was given some assignments from other people and they all complained about her weak performance. So they decided to fire her. She started a lawsuit based on gender and ethnic discrimination, which was ridiculous because she was replaced by someone of the same gender and ethnicity. But we had to bring in outside counsel and it was going to cost a fortune, so there was going to be a settlement. But another consultant who was working for the company convinced her to drop the lawsuit, since it had no merit and it could ruin her reputation.
I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role (Arnold Schwarzenegger would not get picked to play Annie and Shirley Temple would never get picked to play the terminator). and same goes for modeling agencies, look at those stereotypical stock photos in corporate HR glossy team building mags that they give out in huge corporations: can a photographer put up a job post for models and specify race, age gender and such needed to make sure the picture looks "diverse enough"?
Obviously those are exceptions, but remember that actors are not employees - they're independent contractors.
Back during the Clinton administration, the Government tried to go after the Hooters chain for gender discrimination, since they only hired females (and generally younger, good looking females at that) as wait staff. Hooters ran a counter-campaign showing an older, burly, hairy guy with a mustache dressed in a female Hooters outfit to make the case that the Government's effort was absurd. The Government backed down. But the reality is that Hooters could have hired good-looking athletic young guys and dressed them in tight t-shirts and shorts and it probably would have been fine - it might have even attracted more women to their restaurants. The question is how far should the government and courts should go in enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and what truly constitutes discrimination?
But whether you agree with Hooters (or my solution) or not, what theme restaurants like Hooters claim is that they are actually "theatre" - and therefore they have the right to choose what their employees look like. Certainly, fancy restaurants and high-end retailers, especially in New York and Los Angeles, also tend to hire only very good looking people - in fact many hire mostly out-of-work models and actors. Is that discrimination? When high-end companies hire receptionists who look like models, is that discrimination? In the strictest interpretation of the term, it is. But the courts have generally permitted this latitude by business and I personally think that's fine, as long as their definition of "theatre" is not that (for example), "only white males fit our image".
I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role (Arnold Schwarzenegger would not get picked to play Annie and Shirley Temple would never get picked to play the terminator). and same goes for modeling agencies, look at those stereotypical stock photos in corporate HR glossy team building mags that they give out in huge corporations: can a photographer put up a job post for models and specify race, age gender and such needed to make sure the picture looks "diverse enough"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Obviously those are exceptions, but remember that actors are not employees - they're independent contractors.
There are exceptions, but it's up to the employer to prove that they're bonafide job requirements. For example, if you're hiring security guards who must occasionally pat down others (for example, TSA employees), then it is reasonable that you'll need both male and female guards. If your male positions are all filled, it would be perfectly legal to only interview and hire women.
The burden of proof is fairly high - making it difficult to get exceptions. For example, one might think that it would be OK to have an English language only policy for all employees in a retail store. In reality, you can't. You must prove that the employee has enough contact with customers where language would be a bona-fide job requirement and that inability to speak English would damage the store's business. IIRC, a major chain lost a case recently when they tried to enforce English - only for stock clerks.
because I don't think someone files an EEOC complaint over a position they simply weren't interested in.
Actually yes sometimes it does. It my early days I was an assistant manager at a fairly major shop. We had a fired employee file a complaint against our all white management for racism, claiming we were firing all the non white employees. His complaint fell apart when we showed the investigators the pages of him clocking in late at least 50% of his shifts, calling out sick when he had a shift on Saturday morning. And then there were the three written and signed by him warnings, including the one just four days before he was fired saying if he was late again, he was out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx
However, I have to say that I have noticed how there are almost no older people working in Apple stores.
but how many apply. It is possible that not that many older applicants exist to be hired
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer
I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role
Yes and no. They can call for someone that looks a certain age, but outside of confirming that someone is over 18 (often required for major teenage roles due to child labor restictions) or over 24 (required for alcohol related commercial work) they can not ask your age during the audition process or rescind a signed contract if they find out your age later
What is a tad ironic in my odd little industry is that there are some groups up in arms about casting outside of gender and race. They went nuts when Jolie was hired to replace Cruise in Salt instead of another man. They also flipped out when M Night hired a kid from Texas and not a 'real' Asian for Last Airbender. Their belief is that it is better to have someone less skilled but 'correct' than the person who gave the best audition or has the needed amount of bank.
That's generalizing.... isn't it? I'm 66 and I'm still working and I don't think I'm entitled to anything that I haven't worked hard to get. Please don't put us all into the "entitlement" box. There are a lot of young folk around here that think because they can reproduce they deserve my tax money. Your comment was pretty inappropriate.
Why was he terminated and who else at Apple has been treated this way by Katz manager(s) or Apple in general which shows a pattern of attitude toward the non-hipster crowd or whatever you want to call it.
Just as a point of clarification: Constructive termination means he *quit*, but says the issue at hand *forced* him to quit.
I am in my 30s but I personally hate all the emo goober teens Apple hires. I would much rather be served by someone older. I mostly don't respect the hippie generation because a lot of them didn't save for their retirement, but the ones that are willing to work I *do* respect. That said, I don't know if this guy's complaint is genuine or if he's just making one last desperate grasp for the jackpot.
One consideration Apple needs to be very careful about:
They have federal contracts, and probably state contracts with Florida.
These contracts are very specific about what constitutes discrimination. Notwithstanding the merits of this particular EEOC complaint and subsequent lawsuit, if these continue and form a pattern, Apple is in danger of losing these contracts.
Apple needs to be very proactive in settling this.
One consideration Apple needs to be very careful about:
They have federal contracts, and probably state contracts with Florida.
These contracts are very specific about what constitutes discrimination. Notwithstanding the merits of this particular EEOC complaint and subsequent lawsuit, if these continue and form a pattern, Apple is in danger of losing these contracts.
Apple needs to be very proactive in settling this.
I suspect that Apple's attorneys know what they're doing. They're probably also aware of the repercussions for losing an EEOC case.
Apple's attorneys will decide what to do based on whatever evidence the guy presents in his filing - and on deposition. If there's no evidence of wrong-doing, they might be harming themselves more by settling than by fighting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Thank you. I wasn?t aware of that phrasing.
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.
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.
If your requirement t post in an open forum is to know everything about every aspect of a topic then that would disqualify every post you?ve ever made.
The bottom line is that it?s impossible so when you do find yourself knowing something that you think should be common knowledge you have two options. You can either post a constructive post like lukevaxhacker or make a hypocritical and smarmy comment telling people that should ever post if they don?t know as much or more than you in every single way.
If your requirement t post in an open forum is to know everything about every aspect of a topic then that would disqualify every post you?ve ever made.
The bottom line is that it?s impossible so when you do find yourself knowing something that you think should be common knowledge you have two options. You can either post a constructive post like lukevaxhacker or make a hypocritical and smarmy comment telling people that should ever post if they don?t know as much or more than you in every single way.
Nice strawman.
My argument is that you should know enough to post intelligently on a topic before posting. When you don't even understand the basic issues surrounding a topic, anything you post is worthless drivel.
But feel free to continue advocating that people should be cluttering up topics that they know nothing about.
My argument is that you should know enough to post intelligently on a topic before posting. When you don't even understand the basic issues surrounding a topic, anything you post is worthless drivel.
But feel free to continue advocating that people should be cluttering up topics that they know nothing about.
You have the strawman here. You are taking an elitist position for something you can’t possibly defend. Being fired or quitting has no barring on previous comments about his guilt or innocent being determinable from the information given. You can disagree all you want — this is an open forum after all — but being a prick, telling people they shouldn’t post unless they know everything about a topic, despite your own limitations, is just you being a prick.
Comments
Does younger mean MORE qualified? I doubt it. Does a youngster who finds himself in a hiring capacity mean he is more qualified to judge who is more or less qualified? Maybe he would just like to hire all his friends. That seems more likely the case. Apple has their "young, hip" image to project. You rarely see more mature experienced people working in a retail setting on the front lines...
yes, apple 'hello, i am mac' You look like that guy in the commercial? we want you.
you look like the guy that says 'i'm a pc'? forget it.
maybe they should change to match their leader? lets all go for the crazy, bald, bird-like, thin-death look.
ouch! that was bad i know...
I'd like it if I was able to run a business and discriminate against applicants for whatever reason I saw fit. That'd be nice.
Under the law you CAN discriminate against applications (or employees) for a nearly infinite number of reasons.
As long as you don't discriminate against them for a legally prohibited reason, discrimination is OK (actually, it's a positive thing - wouldn't you rather have employers discriminate against dangerous or incompetent employees?)
Illegal discrimination:
Age
Sex
Race
And so on
Legal discrimination:
Competence
Experience
Personality
Prior work history
And, legal in most states:
The color shirt they're wearing
Their eye color or hair color
Presence of tatoos or piercings
And so on....
It's true that Apple has deep pockets, and that's 9/10 of the reason they are sued numerous times a day. But here's my perspective on Apple's retail age discrimination:
Apple retail (and many others, like A&F) is consciously a hip, attractive, youthful environment for selling. I don't care if that's true.
But when it comes to the management of the stores, it is structured so that older workers are almost never advanced to management. Just one of the ways Apple gets around this: they hire young managers from other retailers to avoid promoting qualified workers internally.
Qualified, in my own case, meant that I came to Apple with nearly 20 years of management and entrepreneurial background, including time as a technology COO. I'm a fanboy, and was willing to change my career radically to start at the bottom as a part-time Mac specialist.
My first full month in the store, I was the top salesperson by the key metric (and Apple measures everything): my sales per hour. I asked the store manager what it took to be promoted and he told me: "You have to work here a year." That was the first of many lies I encountered.
In two-and-a-half years with Apple retail - which I loved - I watched every managerial opening around me filled by younger, less experienced, less effective, newer employees, despite my top sales numbers, enthusiasm, product knowledge, work history, and any other factor that could have shaded in my favor. At one point I was full-time and given an "interim" management (keyholder) position. Our store was thriving but a new manager came in, took away my key and my management responsibilities, cut my pay and sent me to another store to work part-time. I left soon after; I'd gotten the message. I was in my mid-40s.
I don't know all the fact in the case from this news item. Proving age discrimination is a near-impossibility, unless there's a smoking gun (an email that explicitly says, "don't promote this guy, he's too old," for example). But there is a pattern of age discrimination at the Apple stores, and it's sad. As a stockholder, I think it's bad for the bottom line too, when they lose or underutilize talent. I hope Apple addresses this - not all of its customers are youngsters, either.
Under the law you CAN discriminate against applications (or employees) for a nearly infinite number of reasons.
As long as you don't discriminate against them for a legally prohibited reason, discrimination is OK (actually, it's a positive thing - wouldn't you rather have employers discriminate against dangerous or incompetent employees?)
Illegal discrimination:
Age
Sex
Race
And so on
Legal discrimination:
Competence
Experience
Personality
Prior work history
And, legal in most states:
The color shirt they're wearing
Their eye color or hair color
Presence of tatoos or piercings
And so on....
I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role (Arnold Schwarzenegger would not get picked to play Annie and Shirley Temple would never get picked to play the terminator). and same goes for modeling agencies, look at those stereotypical stock photos in corporate HR glossy team building mags that they give out in huge corporations: can a photographer put up a job post for models and specify race, age gender and such needed to make sure the picture looks "diverse enough"?
edit, back on topic: could apple claim that "image" or "setting a scene" is a reason to do this kind of discrimination the same way that modeling agencies and casting directors do? Someone in this thread mentioned A&F and other hip stores, surely there is some case law in this area, what about case law for dudes suing Hooters for not getting waitress jobs?
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.
No worries. Work in some of the "creative industries"... I'm sure your heterosexuality will hold you back plenty.
Shame on you for making a snap judgment.
We don't have all the facts so no one should be making any kind of judgments. Perhaps it was about his age. Perhaps it was not. Perhaps the gentleman is wrong about his contention that those picked were un or under qualified. Perhaps he was passed over due to his availability to work the needed number of hours and/or actual hours of the day required. Perhaps he was passed over due to his personality. When you are working one on one with someone who could be a bonafide computer idiot for an extended period, personality would matter
I completely agree. I happen to be 60 and when I was about 55 and applying for jobs or consulting work, I definitely got the feeling that on occasion, I was rejected because of my age. But that also might be simply paranoia -- it's possible I didn't "sell myself" appropriately. The fact is that discrimination is usually hard to properly evaluate, unless it's a matter of pay parity or something similar.
It's certainly possible that younger managers didn't feel comfortable working with someone older and discriminated against this guy. Or, it's possible that this guy was a cranky and lazy worker who did a lousy job -- we simply don't know. However, the manager not knowing that this guy applied or wanted a more senior position is somewhat suspect.
Discrimination lawsuits are relatively hard to pursue these days unless you're claiming discrimination and a member of at least two groups subject to discrimination: like you're above 50 AND you're a member of a minority group. Or you're disabled AND gay. Etc.
The question is whether records were kept as to this employee's performance. If he received annual reviews that were positive, but he was fired after he pursued the more senior position, then he actually has a strong case. Managers frequently make this mistake: they give positive reviews because they don't want to confront their subordinates and because they don't want to screw someone out of a raise, but it comes back to haunt them when they want to get rid of someone. Most large companies have a policy where if an employee isn't performing well, they generally have to receive two warnings in writing, then be placed on "probation" or the equivalent, where they are given a fixed amount of time to improve their performance. Only after that can you fire them and it all has to be comprehensively documented. Companies adopt those policies so that they don't get lawsuits like this one.
A few years ago, I had a case where a lower level employee (who was hired by someone else) was clearly incompetent. She "dotted-line" reported to me, although I was a consultant, so I had limited hire/fire authority. But then she was given some assignments from other people and they all complained about her weak performance. So they decided to fire her. She started a lawsuit based on gender and ethnic discrimination, which was ridiculous because she was replaced by someone of the same gender and ethnicity. But we had to bring in outside counsel and it was going to cost a fortune, so there was going to be a settlement. But another consultant who was working for the company convinced her to drop the lawsuit, since it had no merit and it could ruin her reputation.
I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role (Arnold Schwarzenegger would not get picked to play Annie and Shirley Temple would never get picked to play the terminator). and same goes for modeling agencies, look at those stereotypical stock photos in corporate HR glossy team building mags that they give out in huge corporations: can a photographer put up a job post for models and specify race, age gender and such needed to make sure the picture looks "diverse enough"?
Obviously those are exceptions, but remember that actors are not employees - they're independent contractors.
Back during the Clinton administration, the Government tried to go after the Hooters chain for gender discrimination, since they only hired females (and generally younger, good looking females at that) as wait staff. Hooters ran a counter-campaign showing an older, burly, hairy guy with a mustache dressed in a female Hooters outfit to make the case that the Government's effort was absurd. The Government backed down. But the reality is that Hooters could have hired good-looking athletic young guys and dressed them in tight t-shirts and shorts and it probably would have been fine - it might have even attracted more women to their restaurants. The question is how far should the government and courts should go in enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and what truly constitutes discrimination?
But whether you agree with Hooters (or my solution) or not, what theme restaurants like Hooters claim is that they are actually "theatre" - and therefore they have the right to choose what their employees look like. Certainly, fancy restaurants and high-end retailers, especially in New York and Los Angeles, also tend to hire only very good looking people - in fact many hire mostly out-of-work models and actors. Is that discrimination? When high-end companies hire receptionists who look like models, is that discrimination? In the strictest interpretation of the term, it is. But the courts have generally permitted this latitude by business and I personally think that's fine, as long as their definition of "theatre" is not that (for example), "only white males fit our image".
I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role (Arnold Schwarzenegger would not get picked to play Annie and Shirley Temple would never get picked to play the terminator). and same goes for modeling agencies, look at those stereotypical stock photos in corporate HR glossy team building mags that they give out in huge corporations: can a photographer put up a job post for models and specify race, age gender and such needed to make sure the picture looks "diverse enough"?
Obviously those are exceptions, but remember that actors are not employees - they're independent contractors.
There are exceptions, but it's up to the employer to prove that they're bonafide job requirements. For example, if you're hiring security guards who must occasionally pat down others (for example, TSA employees), then it is reasonable that you'll need both male and female guards. If your male positions are all filled, it would be perfectly legal to only interview and hire women.
The burden of proof is fairly high - making it difficult to get exceptions. For example, one might think that it would be OK to have an English language only policy for all employees in a retail store. In reality, you can't. You must prove that the employee has enough contact with customers where language would be a bona-fide job requirement and that inability to speak English would damage the store's business. IIRC, a major chain lost a case recently when they tried to enforce English - only for stock clerks.
Some background here:
http://www.withylaw.com/distopic.htm
because I don't think someone files an EEOC complaint over a position they simply weren't interested in.
Actually yes sometimes it does. It my early days I was an assistant manager at a fairly major shop. We had a fired employee file a complaint against our all white management for racism, claiming we were firing all the non white employees. His complaint fell apart when we showed the investigators the pages of him clocking in late at least 50% of his shifts, calling out sick when he had a shift on Saturday morning. And then there were the three written and signed by him warnings, including the one just four days before he was fired saying if he was late again, he was out.
However, I have to say that I have noticed how there are almost no older people working in Apple stores.
but how many apply. It is possible that not that many older applicants exist to be hired
I know this may be off topic, but I have always wondered -- are there exceptions to this rule for certain industries? for example, a movie/theater director could call for a middle aged Austrian male, or a young Caucasian Female to play a particular role
Yes and no. They can call for someone that looks a certain age, but outside of confirming that someone is over 18 (often required for major teenage roles due to child labor restictions) or over 24 (required for alcohol related commercial work) they can not ask your age during the audition process or rescind a signed contract if they find out your age later
What is a tad ironic in my odd little industry is that there are some groups up in arms about casting outside of gender and race. They went nuts when Jolie was hired to replace Cruise in Salt instead of another man. They also flipped out when M Night hired a kid from Texas and not a 'real' Asian for Last Airbender. Their belief is that it is better to have someone less skilled but 'correct' than the person who gave the best audition or has the needed amount of bank.
Why was he terminated and who else at Apple has been treated this way by Katz manager(s) or Apple in general which shows a pattern of attitude toward the non-hipster crowd or whatever you want to call it.
Just as a point of clarification: Constructive termination means he *quit*, but says the issue at hand *forced* him to quit.
Just as a point of clarification: Constructive termination means he *quit*, but says the issue at hand *forced* him to quit.
Thank you. I wasn?t aware of that phrasing.
No worries. Work in some of the "creative industries"... I'm sure your heterosexuality will hold you back plenty.
Disclaimer: Please do not take this too seriously.
They have federal contracts, and probably state contracts with Florida.
These contracts are very specific about what constitutes discrimination. Notwithstanding the merits of this particular EEOC complaint and subsequent lawsuit, if these continue and form a pattern, Apple is in danger of losing these contracts.
Apple needs to be very proactive in settling this.
One consideration Apple needs to be very careful about:
They have federal contracts, and probably state contracts with Florida.
These contracts are very specific about what constitutes discrimination. Notwithstanding the merits of this particular EEOC complaint and subsequent lawsuit, if these continue and form a pattern, Apple is in danger of losing these contracts.
Apple needs to be very proactive in settling this.
I suspect that Apple's attorneys know what they're doing. They're probably also aware of the repercussions for losing an EEOC case.
Apple's attorneys will decide what to do based on whatever evidence the guy presents in his filing - and on deposition. If there's no evidence of wrong-doing, they might be harming themselves more by settling than by fighting it.
Thank you. I wasn?t aware of that phrasing.
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.
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.
If your requirement t post in an open forum is to know everything about every aspect of a topic then that would disqualify every post you?ve ever made.
The bottom line is that it?s impossible so when you do find yourself knowing something that you think should be common knowledge you have two options. You can either post a constructive post like lukevaxhacker or make a hypocritical and smarmy comment telling people that should ever post if they don?t know as much or more than you in every single way.
this sounds just like those geniuses that were suing mcdonalds because their burgers made them fat
team apple
Yeah - and like that old lady who claimed she didn't know that coffee was hot at McDonalds!
Hey geniuses: McDonalds food makes you fat. Coffee is hot. And Apple doesn't promote old farts.
Get over it!
</sarcasm>
If your requirement t post in an open forum is to know everything about every aspect of a topic then that would disqualify every post you?ve ever made.
The bottom line is that it?s impossible so when you do find yourself knowing something that you think should be common knowledge you have two options. You can either post a constructive post like lukevaxhacker or make a hypocritical and smarmy comment telling people that should ever post if they don?t know as much or more than you in every single way.
Nice strawman.
My argument is that you should know enough to post intelligently on a topic before posting. When you don't even understand the basic issues surrounding a topic, anything you post is worthless drivel.
But feel free to continue advocating that people should be cluttering up topics that they know nothing about.
Yeah - and like that old lady who claimed she didn't know that coffee was hot at McDonalds!
Hey geniuses: McDonalds food makes you fat. Coffee is hot. And Apple doesn't promote old farts.
Get over it!
The case is more complex than that.
Nice strawman.
My argument is that you should know enough to post intelligently on a topic before posting. When you don't even understand the basic issues surrounding a topic, anything you post is worthless drivel.
But feel free to continue advocating that people should be cluttering up topics that they know nothing about.
You have the strawman here. You are taking an elitist position for something you can’t possibly defend. Being fired or quitting has no barring on previous comments about his guilt or innocent being determinable from the information given. You can disagree all you want — this is an open forum after all — but being a prick, telling people they shouldn’t post unless they know everything about a topic, despite your own limitations, is just you being a prick.