This stuff happens in retail all the time. It's not indicative of the company as a whole; it's almost always the store manager's biases. Most of the time, I don't even think it's conscious.
Were either of the full time people promoted by this manager. If the guy is racist, the answer would be no.
It would interesting to know what her education is and how articulate she is. Those can be really big factors in job promotions. Even though she received a favorable review, 4 out of 5, promotions often require more than just having an acceptable review. There are a lot of intangibles, mannerisms or expectations that aren't always part of the performance review.
If that 5th point was related to the remark that she needed to work on her composure, that might be the issue. Some white customers at that store may be racist which could cause tension with a black sales person, but there is not much you can do about that, so long as they don't make illegal statements. That is where the composure part comes into play.
There was enough evidence for the EEOC to allow the employee to pursue a lawsuit. I grew up in St. Louis and the racial demographics can change greatly from one community to another. Is Apple simply employing people or are they committed to training professionals? If the Manager only documents an employees positive attributes, is he or she doing the employee a disservice by not giving them constructive criticism on things that they can work on in order to progress within Apples system? Let's give her the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are revealed.
A right to sue letter means that the EEOC has investigated, did not find evidence of discrimination, and has informed the complainant of that as well as her statutory right to sue regardless.
Also, statistics aren't relevant evidence to proving discrimination that she's alleging.
Finally, a Complaint is only one side of the story. I make no judgment as to the truth of the allegations but remember they are just that, and not proven fact.
I think you are either going off the deep end in an attempt to make your point, or you are a strong racist (or at least inclined that way) yourself.
Black people *are* discriminated against by the white folks, as are gays and asians and all kinds of other groups. It *does* happen and not everyone who makes a complaint is crazy. They certainly shouldn't just be immediately assumed to be so without any evidence whatsoever.
.......
.
This is certainly true, and equally true is that black folks discriminate against white folks, gays and asians, AND gays discriminate against whites and black and asians and hispanics, AND......
All people have some level of built in biases, some more some less. Some can controls those biases better than others. None of this is limited to any one group of people.
Throwing one part of a truism into your argument really does nothing to support any given conclusion. No one here as anywhere near enough facts to make any judgement, including you.
I posted a link to it. It's 47% black, 45% white. So Apple's 8% ratio is way off.
And whites very often find light-skinned blacks less intimidating or threatening than dark-skinned blacks, and lighter-skinned blacks are often considered more beautiful by whites, because they have "whiter" features. That's not puzzling or surprising if you've ever actually worked with or talked with black people… or any minorities, really… about this subject.
You automatically jump to several conclusions here without knowing the facts of the particular case. You are speculating.
Since when does a company's hiring practices HAVE to mirror population composition? Ergo, color is more important than competence? I don't imagine you realize how truly racist your "progressive" principles are.
If a lesser candidate is given race-based preferences, it only widens the disparity between the races in the long run.
Apple, the new Abercrombie and Fitch. Well, I could be wrong but until recently I have not seen many minorities in Apple advertisements. Just shiny happy snowboarders, or mountain climbers, or people at the beach.
Not true. Some of the very first iPod ads had blacks in them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Personally, I believe her story. Not that Apple per se is bad, but in this case the store may have had such a policy or problem with minorities.
Amazing how people will believe someone without hearing the other side. Wouldn't justice require that BOTH sides get to tell their story?
This stuff happens in retail all the time. It's not indicative of the company as a whole; it's almost always the store manager's biases. Most of the time, I don't even think it's conscious.
Good info. Unfortunately, the Galleria is in St Louis County, not the city. It is sandwiched between two of the wealthier suburbs of St Louis County, Ladue and Clayton. The Galleria, for better or worse, tries to project an image of up scale shopping, evidenced by the fact Apple chose the location for it's store. The city the Galleria resides in, Richmond Heights, has a population that is 13.32% black, according to Wikipedia. 8% is not great, but not wildly out of keeping with the stores locale. I am not trying to find fault or favor with either the Plantiff or Defendants here, just keeping the facts visible to all. And I know this because I live in St Louis, and bought my MBPro, 2 iPhones, an iPad2, 27" iMac and truckloads of other goodies at the store in question.
Not true. Some of the very first iPod ads had blacks in them.
Amazing how people will believe someone without hearing the other side. Wouldn't justice require that BOTH sides get to tell their story?
I did say I could be wrong. I do not remember the first ads but I am willing to take your word for it. As for believing her side of the story first, yeah, considering that the current climate in the US is anti-black, anti-gay, anti-anything-non-WASP, anti-minority, chances are she might have a point. The courts will find who's at fault.
Amazing how people will believe someone without hearing the other side. Wouldn't justice require that BOTH sides get to tell their story?
IMO there's too few members that have any interest in hearing the "other side" of many discussions here, whether it's privacy issues, or copying allegations or claimed patent infringement or discrimination lawsuits.
Because of the unequal protection under the law offered to minorities, gender benders, and other "protected" classes through agencies such as the EEOC, there is a backlash effect. Any prospective employer would weigh the risks of hiring someone who might sue them if things didn't work out.
Do white males have the same options as protected classes do when they are unhappy? Of course not. Therefore, there is arguably less legal risk to hire non-protected classes, i.e. "white males".
It is unfortunate that in today's politically correct society and everyone's agreement that discrimination and racism is wrong, it obviously still exists. Statistics are not proof, but perceptions can be real.
The fact is is that there will always be discrimination. Everyone has their preferences and biases. Sometimes it is easy to hide, sometimes it is hard to hide.
Let this case pan out. It could be quite valid. It might not be.
I posted a link to it. It's 47% black, 45% white. So Apple's 8% ratio is way off.
And whites very often find light-skinned blacks less intimidating or threatening than dark-skinned blacks, and lighter-skinned blacks are often considered more beautiful by whites, because they have "whiter" features. That's not puzzling or surprising if you've ever actually worked with or talked with black people? or any minorities, really? about this subject.
And blacks often find lighter-skinned blacks more beautiful too, which isn't surprising since I've both worked with AND talked with black people. Amazing, yes? Actually, you find the same thing in other minority communities where they strive to keep their skin as light as possible regardless of whether they're dealing with mean old whitey.
Comments
And you know this? how?
This stuff happens in retail all the time. It's not indicative of the company as a whole; it's almost always the store manager's biases. Most of the time, I don't even think it's conscious.
Were either of the full time people promoted by this manager. If the guy is racist, the answer would be no.
Rubbish
Oh no. You said rubbish so you must be correct. Back on the meds and get some rest. Mmmk?
If that 5th point was related to the remark that she needed to work on her composure, that might be the issue. Some white customers at that store may be racist which could cause tension with a black sales person, but there is not much you can do about that, so long as they don't make illegal statements. That is where the composure part comes into play.
There was enough evidence for the EEOC to allow the employee to pursue a lawsuit. I grew up in St. Louis and the racial demographics can change greatly from one community to another. Is Apple simply employing people or are they committed to training professionals? If the Manager only documents an employees positive attributes, is he or she doing the employee a disservice by not giving them constructive criticism on things that they can work on in order to progress within Apples system? Let's give her the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are revealed.
A right to sue letter means that the EEOC has investigated, did not find evidence of discrimination, and has informed the complainant of that as well as her statutory right to sue regardless.
Also, statistics aren't relevant evidence to proving discrimination that she's alleging.
Finally, a Complaint is only one side of the story. I make no judgment as to the truth of the allegations but remember they are just that, and not proven fact.
This statement goes way too far IMO.
I think you are either going off the deep end in an attempt to make your point, or you are a strong racist (or at least inclined that way) yourself.
Black people *are* discriminated against by the white folks, as are gays and asians and all kinds of other groups. It *does* happen and not everyone who makes a complaint is crazy. They certainly shouldn't just be immediately assumed to be so without any evidence whatsoever.
.......
.
This is certainly true, and equally true is that black folks discriminate against white folks, gays and asians, AND gays discriminate against whites and black and asians and hispanics, AND......
All people have some level of built in biases, some more some less. Some can controls those biases better than others. None of this is limited to any one group of people.
Throwing one part of a truism into your argument really does nothing to support any given conclusion. No one here as anywhere near enough facts to make any judgement, including you.
I posted a link to it. It's 47% black, 45% white. So Apple's 8% ratio is way off.
And whites very often find light-skinned blacks less intimidating or threatening than dark-skinned blacks, and lighter-skinned blacks are often considered more beautiful by whites, because they have "whiter" features. That's not puzzling or surprising if you've ever actually worked with or talked with black people… or any minorities, really… about this subject.
You automatically jump to several conclusions here without knowing the facts of the particular case. You are speculating.
Since when does a company's hiring practices HAVE to mirror population composition? Ergo, color is more important than competence? I don't imagine you realize how truly racist your "progressive" principles are.
If a lesser candidate is given race-based preferences, it only widens the disparity between the races in the long run.
Apple, the new Abercrombie and Fitch. Well, I could be wrong but until recently I have not seen many minorities in Apple advertisements. Just shiny happy snowboarders, or mountain climbers, or people at the beach.
Not true. Some of the very first iPod ads had blacks in them.
Personally, I believe her story. Not that Apple per se is bad, but in this case the store may have had such a policy or problem with minorities.
Amazing how people will believe someone without hearing the other side. Wouldn't justice require that BOTH sides get to tell their story?
Oh no. You said rubbish so you must be correct. Back on the meds and get some rest. Mmmk?
It being shit cold at elnsinki I suggest you jump.
And you know this? how?
This stuff happens in retail all the time. It's not indicative of the company as a whole; it's almost always the store manager's biases. Most of the time, I don't even think it's conscious.
It's worth noting that St. Louis has slightly more black people than white people. (http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Louis-Missouri.html) So only 8% of your staff be black in St. Louis seems a bit off.
Good info. Unfortunately, the Galleria is in St Louis County, not the city. It is sandwiched between two of the wealthier suburbs of St Louis County, Ladue and Clayton. The Galleria, for better or worse, tries to project an image of up scale shopping, evidenced by the fact Apple chose the location for it's store. The city the Galleria resides in, Richmond Heights, has a population that is 13.32% black, according to Wikipedia. 8% is not great, but not wildly out of keeping with the stores locale. I am not trying to find fault or favor with either the Plantiff or Defendants here, just keeping the facts visible to all. And I know this because I live in St Louis, and bought my MBPro, 2 iPhones, an iPad2, 27" iMac and truckloads of other goodies at the store in question.
Not true. Some of the very first iPod ads had blacks in them.
Amazing how people will believe someone without hearing the other side. Wouldn't justice require that BOTH sides get to tell their story?
I did say I could be wrong. I do not remember the first ads but I am willing to take your word for it. As for believing her side of the story first, yeah, considering that the current climate in the US is anti-black, anti-gay, anti-anything-non-WASP, anti-minority, chances are she might have a point. The courts will find who's at fault.
It being shit cold at elnsinki I suggest you jump.
In english next time okay. Try to string together a cogent argument and a intelligent sentence. Have your mommy help you next time.
Amazing how people will believe someone without hearing the other side. Wouldn't justice require that BOTH sides get to tell their story?
IMO there's too few members that have any interest in hearing the "other side" of many discussions here, whether it's privacy issues, or copying allegations or claimed patent infringement or discrimination lawsuits.
Do white males have the same options as protected classes do when they are unhappy? Of course not. Therefore, there is arguably less legal risk to hire non-protected classes, i.e. "white males".
You can't have it both ways, folks.
The case making headlines and being in the news is itself shining the light on the issue.
Shining the light on what issue? Aren't you assuming there actually is an issue here?
The USA is one of the most racist countries on Earth, if not the most racist. It's not *that * unlikely that what she says is true.
You obviously haven't traveled.
The fact is is that there will always be discrimination. Everyone has their preferences and biases. Sometimes it is easy to hide, sometimes it is hard to hide.
Let this case pan out. It could be quite valid. It might not be.
I posted a link to it. It's 47% black, 45% white. So Apple's 8% ratio is way off.
And whites very often find light-skinned blacks less intimidating or threatening than dark-skinned blacks, and lighter-skinned blacks are often considered more beautiful by whites, because they have "whiter" features. That's not puzzling or surprising if you've ever actually worked with or talked with black people? or any minorities, really? about this subject.
And blacks often find lighter-skinned blacks more beautiful too, which isn't surprising since I've both worked with AND talked with black people. Amazing, yes? Actually, you find the same thing in other minority communities where they strive to keep their skin as light as possible regardless of whether they're dealing with mean old whitey.
So it goes.