Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
WA707atMSP wrote:Last year, a white woman called the police after a gay Black man asked her to put her dog on a leash in the Ramble area of New York City's Central Park, where off leash dogs are prohibited.
The gay Black man's video of the white woman's confrontational behavior went viral, and she was fired by her employer, Franklin Templeton Investments, for her racist behavior.
Now, the white woman is suing Franklin Templeton, claiming she was unfairly terminated because she was white, and a woman.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/27/10008312 ... er-lawsuit
I think this woman's behavior, both when she called the police to report the incident, and today when she's suing her former employer, embodies white privilege at its worst. Franklin Templeton says they will vigorously defend themselves.....and I hope Franklin Templeton's lawyers DEMOLISH this racist, homophobic b**ch!
WA707atMSP wrote:I think this woman's behavior, both when she called the police to report the incident, and today when she's suing her former employer, embodies white privilege at its worst. Franklin Templeton says they will vigorously defend themselves.....and I hope Franklin Templeton's lawyers DEMOLISH this racist, homophobic b**ch!
johns624 wrote:While her actions were idiotic, I'm not sure that race was even an issue. What I mean is, she was in the wrong to have her dog off the leash and somebody telling her to do it is not a threat. However, her mentioning the man's race could've been seen as a descriptor in case he actually committed a crime and was gone before the police showed up. If she had used a racial slur, that would make it totally different.
WA707atMSP wrote:I think this woman's behavior, both when she called the police to report the incident, and today when she's suing her former employer, embodies white privilege at its worst. Franklin Templeton says they will vigorously defend themselves.....and I hope Franklin Templeton's lawyers DEMOLISH this racist, homophobic b**ch!
WA707atMSP wrote:Last year, a white woman called the police after a gay Black man asked her to put her dog on a leash in the Ramble area of New York City's Central Park, where off leash dogs are prohibited.
The gay Black man's video of the white woman's confrontational behavior went viral, and she was fired by her employer, Franklin Templeton Investments, for her racist behavior.
Now, the white woman is suing Franklin Templeton, claiming she was unfairly terminated because she was white, and a woman.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/27/10008312 ... er-lawsuit
I think this woman's behavior, both when she called the police to report the incident, and today when she's suing her former employer, embodies white privilege at its worst. Franklin Templeton says they will vigorously defend themselves.....and I hope Franklin Templeton's lawyers DEMOLISH this racist, homophobic b**ch!
WA707atMSP wrote:Last year, a white woman called the police after a gay Black man asked her to put her dog on a leash in the Ramble area of New York City's Central Park, where off leash dogs are prohibited.
The gay Black man's video of the white woman's confrontational behavior went viral, and she was fired by her employer, Franklin Templeton Investments, for her racist behavior.
Now, the white woman is suing Franklin Templeton, claiming she was unfairly terminated because she was white, and a woman.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/27/10008312 ... er-lawsuit
I think this woman's behavior, both when she called the police to report the incident, and today when she's suing her former employer, embodies white privilege at its worst. Franklin Templeton says they will vigorously defend themselves.....and I hope Franklin Templeton's lawyers DEMOLISH this racist, homophobic b**ch!
Unless an employee works for the government, belongs to a union, or works in Montana, they are subject to employment at-will. That means with some exceptions, an employer can terminate employment at any time they like without even having a reason unless an employment contract specifies otherwise. So, if your employee is subject to employment at-will, has spouted hate speech on their Facebook page, and is subject to no other legal protection, you are free to terminate them for that reason, for no reason, or because you felt like it when you got up this morning. However, an employer cannot fire an employee for an illegal reason such as due to race, sex, age, nationality, religion, disability, or in retaliation for whistleblowing. And, of course, an employee might try to claim they were fired for such an illegal reason.
dfwjim1 wrote:I wonder if Templeton would have fired her if she was black and the guy was a different race.
LCDFlight wrote:She has maybe half a case, because if she were a different race the incident would not have gone viral.
But do I feel bad for her? Not at all. She was such a textbook Karen here, threatening use of police as an instrument of violence. She knows what she did here, and she said it on tape. IIRC the guy also threatened her physically, so it kind of matters who escalated first, and therefore who was threatening "offense" versus "defense."
Aaron747 wrote:LCDFlight wrote:She has maybe half a case, because if she were a different race the incident would not have gone viral.
But do I feel bad for her? Not at all. She was such a textbook Karen here, threatening use of police as an instrument of violence. She knows what she did here, and she said it on tape. IIRC the guy also threatened her physically, so it kind of matters who escalated first, and therefore who was threatening "offense" versus "defense."
Well no, he didn't threaten her. He reminded her it was illegal to have her dog unleashed, she refused to leash her dog, and he then beckoned her dog over with a treat. She reacted to that, he started filming, she got angry he was filming, and we saw the rest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/nyre ... video.html
LCDFlight wrote:Aaron747 wrote:LCDFlight wrote:She has maybe half a case, because if she were a different race the incident would not have gone viral.
But do I feel bad for her? Not at all. She was such a textbook Karen here, threatening use of police as an instrument of violence. She knows what she did here, and she said it on tape. IIRC the guy also threatened her physically, so it kind of matters who escalated first, and therefore who was threatening "offense" versus "defense."
Well no, he didn't threaten her. He reminded her it was illegal to have her dog unleashed, she refused to leash her dog, and he then beckoned her dog over with a treat. She reacted to that, he started filming, she got angry he was filming, and we saw the rest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/nyre ... video.html
I think you're right, but
Cooper said on Facebook that he told the woman: “If you’re going to do what you want, im [sic] going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.”
That's his written report of it. He made what I think was a lighthearted threat to feed her dog without authorization. She may argue she interpreted this as a threat of violent attack. It is what it is... a cluster, and she got owned. It would be better for her to move on.
alfa164 wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:I think this woman's behavior, both when she called the police to report the incident, and today when she's suing her former employer, embodies white privilege at its worst. Franklin Templeton says they will vigorously defend themselves.....and I hope Franklin Templeton's lawyers DEMOLISH this racist, homophobic b**ch!
Franklin Templeton is an investment firm, and their reputation rests on the honesty, integrity, and judgement of their employees. Any client who sees or hears of her on the video, then sees or hears of her behind a desk at such a firm, has every reason to take his/her business elsewhere. A financial institution cannot afford to maintain employees whose reputation diminishes the credibility of the firm.
I think this should be a slam-dunk for the Franklin Templeton.
casinterest wrote:
She has to claim this because it is her only chance of overcoming an at-will-employment firing .
slider wrote:casinterest wrote:
She has to claim this because it is her only chance of overcoming an at-will-employment firing .
Being a woman is not a protected class, though.
This woman is clearly off-kilter somehow, IMO, but it raises a larger question about at-will employment and how the imbalance of power continues in which employers hold all the cards all the time. Americans need employment contracts.
slider wrote:casinterest wrote:
She has to claim this because it is her only chance of overcoming an at-will-employment firing .
Being a woman is not a protected class, though.
This woman is clearly off-kilter somehow, IMO, but it raises a larger question about at-will employment and how the imbalance of power continues in which employers hold all the cards all the time. Americans need employment contracts.
slider wrote:It does work both ways (sometimes). I was planning on retiring right about now but last November I was feeling run down and sick of my job. It turns out that I had a mild case of Covid but didn't know that until after I'd made the decision. So I decided to quit (retire). Several years ago, when Michigan became an "at will" state, the owner was elated. When I walked into his office and told him I quit, he asked if it was a two week notice. I told him "no", immediately. He wasn't happy, but I was. When I found out later that day that my test came back positive, I called up and told one of the managers. I don't think they believed me, but I didn't care.but it raises a larger question about at-will employment and how the imbalance of power continues in which employers hold all the cards all the time. Americans need employment contracts.
Aaron747 wrote:slider wrote:casinterest wrote:
She has to claim this because it is her only chance of overcoming an at-will-employment firing .
Being a woman is not a protected class, though.
This woman is clearly off-kilter somehow, IMO, but it raises a larger question about at-will employment and how the imbalance of power continues in which employers hold all the cards all the time. Americans need employment contracts.
Capitalism is king - it's the American way. Companies hold the cards and in a lot of states swindled voters into making it that way. For crying out loud, only the Big Sky state hasn't fully implemented at-will policies.
As for her suit, that's the thrust of her claim I assume - that she was fired via Title IX violation. Exceedingly difficult to prove, so...good luck.
slider wrote:casinterest wrote:
She has to claim this because it is her only chance of overcoming an at-will-employment firing .
Being a woman is not a protected class, though.
This woman is clearly off-kilter somehow, IMO, but it raises a larger question about at-will employment and how the imbalance of power continues in which employers hold all the cards all the time. Americans need employment contracts.
casinterest wrote:Sex discrimination is what she is going after. It is going to be hard for her to prove unless there are not a lot of white women working at Franklin Templeton.
Employers have always held the upper hand. That is why unions and organized labor came into existence, and why they have contracts that have to be negotiated.
slider wrote:casinterest wrote:
She has to claim this because it is her only chance of overcoming an at-will-employment firing .
Being a woman is not a protected class, though.
This woman is clearly off-kilter somehow, IMO, but it raises a larger question about at-will employment and how the imbalance of power continues in which employers hold all the cards all the time. Americans need employment contracts.
WA707atMSP wrote:One thing I wonder about:
Media reports say this woman had previously sued a married man she'd allegedly been having an extramarital affair with. She clearly is a volatile, unstable person.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/26/amy-coope ... ut-of-65k/
There could well have been past incidents at work that Franklin Templeton was concerned about, but which weren't serious enough to justify firing her. Franklin Templeton might have used the dog walking incident as an opportunity to terminate her.
If this is the case, her lawsuit would enable Franklin Templeton to publicly share any past concerns about her performance and / or professionalism during the trial. Once this information becomes public, it will seriously limit her ability to find employment elsewhere.
LCDFlight wrote:slider wrote:casinterest wrote:
She has to claim this because it is her only chance of overcoming an at-will-employment firing .
Being a woman is not a protected class, though.
This woman is clearly off-kilter somehow, IMO, but it raises a larger question about at-will employment and how the imbalance of power continues in which employers hold all the cards all the time. Americans need employment contracts.
I am not a lawyer, but being a woman or man (or being any race) is absolutely a protected class.
A complicating factor here may be _IF_ the employer directly said that they cannot allow someone of her race to do what she did. _IF_ they did say that, they probably owe her several million. The key question is, did they make reference, directly or indirectly, to her race when they fired her. If they did, she wins easily. If not, her case sucks and she will go away.
Classa64 wrote:Why not;
"Amy Cooper, a New York woman who called police on a bird-watcher in Central Park last Memorial Day..."
Instead of what the media put
"Amy Cooper, a white New York woman who called police on a Black bird-watcher in Central Park last Memorial Day"
This would have never made the news if written the first way don't ya think ?
scbriml wrote:Classa64 wrote:Why not;
"Amy Cooper, a New York woman who called police on a bird-watcher in Central Park last Memorial Day..."
Instead of what the media put
"Amy Cooper, a white New York woman who called police on a Black bird-watcher in Central Park last Memorial Day"
This would have never made the news if written the first way don't ya think ?
Maybe because she made it about skin colour?
Classa64 wrote:But he was black. And that's why its in the news sadly.
scbriml wrote:Classa64 wrote:But he was black. And that's why its in the news sadly.
No, it was in the news because she made it about skin colour.
Aesma wrote:Yeah and since she was the one breaking the law, her idea was clearly to use the cops against an innocent man, playing on the stereotype black man = thug.