Topic: Can I sue my company and get rich?
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #38,040
I walked into the communal office today, and some of my co-workers were audibly having a prayer meeting. I am not a Christian, and I was very uncomfortable. Were they illegal? Can I sue?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #509,437
Sue? Why not join them. The leader can turn water to wine at no charge.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #509,438
@previous (B)
Because I am here to work, not to have religious meetings and try to convert people. It is offensive, obnoxious, and makes non-Christians uncomfortable. It is also illegal I think.
Because I am here to work, not to have religious meetings and try to convert people. It is offensive, obnoxious, and makes non-Christians uncomfortable. It is also illegal I think.
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #509,455
@previous (A)
> It is also illegal I think.
What country do you live in?
You said company and not a Gov owned operation.
IF for example you live in USA and work for a private or company that is a public corp? Betting as best guess this applies
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html
Powerful rules about religious discrimination upon hiring and or treatment after employment, -
4. What constitutes religious harassment under Title VII?
Religious harassment in violation of Title VII occurs when employees are: (1) required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment (this type of “quid pro quo” harassment may also give rise to a disparate treatment or denial of accommodation claim in some circumstances); or (2) subjected to unwelcome statements or conduct that is based on religion and is so severe or pervasive that the individual being harassed reasonably finds the work environment to be hostile or abusive, and there is a basis for holding the employer liable.
It is necessary to evaluate all of the surrounding circumstances to determine whether or not particular conduct or remarks are unwelcome. For example, where an employee is upset by repeated mocking use of derogatory terms or comments about his religious beliefs or observance by a colleague, it may be evident that the conduct is unwelcome. In contrast, a consensual conversation about religious views, even if quite spirited, does not constitute harassment if it is not unwelcome.
> In contrast, a consensual conversation about religious views, even if quite spirited, does not constitute harassment if it is not unwelcome.
Even unwelcome religiously motivated conduct is not unlawful unless the victim subjectively perceives the environment to be abusive and the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. Religious expression that is repeatedly directed at an employee can become severe or pervasive, whether or not the content is intended to be insulting or abusive. Thus, for example, persistently reiterating atheist views to a religious employee who has asked that this conduct stop can create a hostile environment.
The extent to which the expression is directed at a particular employee is relevant to determining whether or when it could reasonably be perceived to be severe or pervasive by that employee. For example, although it is conceivable that an employee may allege that he is offended by a colleague’s wearing of religious garb, expressing one’s religion by wearing religious garb is not religious harassment. It merely expresses an individual’s religious affiliation and does not demean other religious views. As such, it is not objectively hostile. Nor is it directed at any particular individual. Similarly, workplace displays of religious artifacts or posters that do not demean other religious views generally would not constitute religious harassment.
You can read on and on. Personally I doubt you should be butt hurt about such minor tribulations.
One thing I learned about the law back when I majored as EE at UCLA and minor was only two years of law and all that was Tort (contract) I learned two valuable lessons - I learned the law and common sense have nothing to do with each other. And that in the end I no nothing about the law.
In the business and other aspects of living life and needing Divorce law IRS law Real Estate law - I have learned that EVEN Attorneys in practice in small or large firms also no not all that much about the law IF its not in their microscope limited realm of specialization.
Attorney's are infamous for taking your money to become educated on the specific laws governing your case - Takes careful research to locate just the right attorney that knows what you want to know.
Lots of bad results out there unless one is very careful.
Going to give you just one example of many I have dealt with . Divorce when property and all that goes with it are complex in Calif. So I asked for a divorce and my wife selected a now infamous Attorney who does much to much TV. Of course I am prejudiced about her qualifications. But bottom line was - She had a large practice with many attorneys who work for her. Handle most cases people go to her and she hands off cases to others. In my case she decided to handle my wife's personally.
So it takes almost 4 years to be complete -
Divorce is about all kinds of STUFF and Stuff like real estate holdings and investments end up being not just a split because in Calif it in theory is 50-50 and then comes the end and taxes - who pays and how much and how is that split?
Allred did ok except I think my side did far better - Plus there were complex US Gov issues as a hidden agenda in the mix --BUTTTTT Gloria had not a single attorney in her practice that knew Jack Shit about IRS regulations or even basic accounting practices on business issues - Betting she had never taken a basic accounting course.
So did I see the error of her ways and take advantage? Only the IRS is really sure LOL - I made damn well sure I clued the IRS in on how I intended to play the laws at the end. NOW did I no jack shit about this shit? Hell NO - But my attorneys had on staff an Attorney who also was a CPA and former IRS Agent
Need say no more
> It is also illegal I think.
What country do you live in?
You said company and not a Gov owned operation.
IF for example you live in USA and work for a private or company that is a public corp? Betting as best guess this applies
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html
Powerful rules about religious discrimination upon hiring and or treatment after employment, -
4. What constitutes religious harassment under Title VII?
Religious harassment in violation of Title VII occurs when employees are: (1) required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment (this type of “quid pro quo” harassment may also give rise to a disparate treatment or denial of accommodation claim in some circumstances); or (2) subjected to unwelcome statements or conduct that is based on religion and is so severe or pervasive that the individual being harassed reasonably finds the work environment to be hostile or abusive, and there is a basis for holding the employer liable.
It is necessary to evaluate all of the surrounding circumstances to determine whether or not particular conduct or remarks are unwelcome. For example, where an employee is upset by repeated mocking use of derogatory terms or comments about his religious beliefs or observance by a colleague, it may be evident that the conduct is unwelcome. In contrast, a consensual conversation about religious views, even if quite spirited, does not constitute harassment if it is not unwelcome.
> In contrast, a consensual conversation about religious views, even if quite spirited, does not constitute harassment if it is not unwelcome.
Even unwelcome religiously motivated conduct is not unlawful unless the victim subjectively perceives the environment to be abusive and the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. Religious expression that is repeatedly directed at an employee can become severe or pervasive, whether or not the content is intended to be insulting or abusive. Thus, for example, persistently reiterating atheist views to a religious employee who has asked that this conduct stop can create a hostile environment.
The extent to which the expression is directed at a particular employee is relevant to determining whether or when it could reasonably be perceived to be severe or pervasive by that employee. For example, although it is conceivable that an employee may allege that he is offended by a colleague’s wearing of religious garb, expressing one’s religion by wearing religious garb is not religious harassment. It merely expresses an individual’s religious affiliation and does not demean other religious views. As such, it is not objectively hostile. Nor is it directed at any particular individual. Similarly, workplace displays of religious artifacts or posters that do not demean other religious views generally would not constitute religious harassment.
You can read on and on. Personally I doubt you should be butt hurt about such minor tribulations.
One thing I learned about the law back when I majored as EE at UCLA and minor was only two years of law and all that was Tort (contract) I learned two valuable lessons - I learned the law and common sense have nothing to do with each other. And that in the end I no nothing about the law.
In the business and other aspects of living life and needing Divorce law IRS law Real Estate law - I have learned that EVEN Attorneys in practice in small or large firms also no not all that much about the law IF its not in their microscope limited realm of specialization.
Attorney's are infamous for taking your money to become educated on the specific laws governing your case - Takes careful research to locate just the right attorney that knows what you want to know.
Lots of bad results out there unless one is very careful.
Going to give you just one example of many I have dealt with . Divorce when property and all that goes with it are complex in Calif. So I asked for a divorce and my wife selected a now infamous Attorney who does much to much TV. Of course I am prejudiced about her qualifications. But bottom line was - She had a large practice with many attorneys who work for her. Handle most cases people go to her and she hands off cases to others. In my case she decided to handle my wife's personally.
So it takes almost 4 years to be complete -
Divorce is about all kinds of STUFF and Stuff like real estate holdings and investments end up being not just a split because in Calif it in theory is 50-50 and then comes the end and taxes - who pays and how much and how is that split?
Allred did ok except I think my side did far better - Plus there were complex US Gov issues as a hidden agenda in the mix --BUTTTTT Gloria had not a single attorney in her practice that knew Jack Shit about IRS regulations or even basic accounting practices on business issues - Betting she had never taken a basic accounting course.
So did I see the error of her ways and take advantage? Only the IRS is really sure LOL - I made damn well sure I clued the IRS in on how I intended to play the laws at the end. NOW did I no jack shit about this shit? Hell NO - But my attorneys had on staff an Attorney who also was a CPA and former IRS Agent
Need say no more
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #509,457
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 31 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #509,466
@previous (A)USA or Eu or Canuck?
If some guy/girl/gender/bender owns the company - betting ur shit out of luck
You could get good free legal advice from this site
http://www.dewey-cheatham-howe.com/
They also have offices in Harvard Square
5 Jfk St
Ste 304
Cambridge, MA 02138
Harvard Square
(Edited 1 minute later.)