Famed B&H Photo hit with discrimination suit

[Village Idiot]

I'm not taking a side here, but if your unhappy at a job and are "trying to support a family" on $9 an hour maybe its time to look for a new job... Wait that would be work tho, nvm we will just sue......

Thats exactialy what the one woman was doing. Trying to get a better paying position! And why should she have to look for a job elsewhere if her current company is hiring for higher paying positions??? The fact is women do get discriminated against. Now it's not as bad as it used to be years ago. But discrimination is alive and well all over (some situations reverse discrimination is an issue). And without trying to sound bad. Certain relegions absolutely forbid women to work certain jobs (and they try to do that in the US, where it is illegal deppending on how you look at the laws). The only people that know for sure what's going on is the people involved and the store! There are alot of people that use the legal system to make an easy buck. And there are alot of people who are just fed up and sue.

Nobody knows, and may not know if they settle out of court and have anti-disclosure rules applied (as they normally do).

There's an oxymoron for a country that was based on people fleeing religious persecution.

You have the freedom to practice any religion you choose, so long as it doesn't interfere with our way of life.

 

[schumionbike]

There's an oxymoron for a country that was based on people fleeing religious persecution.

You have the freedom to practice any religion you choose, so long as it doesn't interfere with our way of life.

I'm pretty sure our way of life doesn't include gender discrimination. Once in a while, these values clash. Freedom of religion v. gender discrimination, interesting case for sure. Religious freedom didn't include polygamy among other things.

 

[ANDS!]

I also noticed the article didn't mention that the women were in fact qualified for the sales job(s) the were seeking.

Absolutely meaningless if they were told no because of their gender. Had they just said "Oh you're not qualified" this wouldn't be an issue and the women wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That BH has settled before, and there are three women corroborating the story - doesn't look too hot.

Precedent exists with Muslim banks in America offering "Sharia banking services"

This is no different than kosher foods; you can set up your bank to follow whatever edicts - religious or otherwise - you want. However it is when you bring those rules over to areas that are protected by federal and state laws (hiring practices, whom you serve) that things become an issue. I gaurantee not one of those banks would be able to deny service or employment based on Sharia and allowed to continue to do so.

 

[Garbz]

I also noticed the article didn't mention that the women were in fact qualified for the sales job(s) the were seeking.

Absolutely meaningless if they were told no because of their gender. Had they just said "Oh you're not qualified" this wouldn't be an issue and the women wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That BH has settled before, and there are three women corroborating the story - doesn't look too hot.

Not meaning-less at all in the face of an allegation. It could quite well be that these people were rejected because of lack of qualifications, but the one who passed was male. So the three get together and say let's sue the company but we'll get our stories right first.

In the face of it consider yourself a manager in a heavily discriminating company who only employs males. Do you:
a) Tell the applicants to their face, "Sorry we don't hire your kind" or
b) Say "I'm sorry you're ... errr.... Not .... umm. Qualified, yes, yes. You're not qualified for the job.

Given how incredibly STUPID it would be to tell the truth in this situation, I would bet money that the entire story is fabricated, given that the alternative is that B&H's recruiting staff would be so incredibly stupid that they would probably all end up getting a Darwin award anyway.

 

[DennyCrane]

Look at the NFL- If you own a team, and you want to fire your coach and hire that Superbowl winning guy that's suddenly available... and he's white... you can't. Not until you interview a black guy for the job. It's a written in stone NFL rule. It doesn't matter whether you have already made your decision before you fire your current coach. It's done in the name of diversity. So, every time a team needs a new coach, they fly in a black guy for an interview. Whether he has a chance or not.

I'm very sure a company as big as B&H knows the rules and the laws. I'd bet there was never anything provable in court saying "women need not apply". Whether it's a real policy or not, you're in business that long and get that big, you interview everyone from within and from the outside.

 

[Plato]

Look at the NFL- If you own a team, and you want to fire your coach and hire that Superbowl winning guy that's suddenly available... and he's white... you can't. Not until you interview a black guy for the job. It's a written in stone NFL rule. It doesn't matter whether you have already made your decision before you fire your current coach. It's done in the name of diversity. So, every time a team needs a new coach, they fly in a black guy for an interview. Whether he has a chance or not.

I'm very sure a company as big as B&H knows the rules and the laws. I'd bet there was never anything provable in court saying "women need not apply". Whether it's a real policy or not, you're in business that long and get that big, you interview everyone from within and from the outside.

Yes, let's look at the NFL. How many female linebackers are in the NFL? You're not going to allege that absolutely NONE are qualified?

Why was the Hooter's lawsuit thrown out? Males wanted to wait on tables and were denied that opportunity.

 

[schumionbike]

there are tests that the court employ for these kind of things. Something like race is under strict scrutiny (there must be a strong and compelling for the discrimation), economic is rational basis (any rational reason for the discrimination would be enough), and gender is some where in between (known as middle scrutiny).

Female linebacker in the NFL, heck, even if you use the strict scrutiny standard, it's hard to convince any court that a female would have enough ability to play at that level. As far as male waiter at Hooter, it's obvious from social preference that female would make more desirable waiter at Hooter even if you put it under the strict scrutiny. In both these cases, there's obviously a strong and compelling reason not to hire them for those particular job.

Female not qualify for getting a sale job? it's gonna be damn hard to convince anyone that female aren't able to do the job. If there are 900 people working at B&H, at not one single female is a sale person, the case does not look good for B&H.

 

[RyanLilly]

Why was the Hooter's lawsuit thrown out? Males wanted to wait on tables and were denied that opportunity.

I believe the ruling was basically, that a major part of business, was selling not only food, but sex appeal, and that men could not provide that aspect of the business well enough to satisfy Hooters core demographic of customers who are mostly Heterosexual males.

I really don't thing that B&H is selling sex with cameras, so I doubt that this precedent applies here.

 

[Plato]

Female linebacker in the NFL, heck, even if you use the strict scrutiny standard, it's hard to convince any court that a female would have enough ability to play at that level.

Obviously you haven't seen the women that I've seen. Further, if they can play in the NHL (which they have), there's no reason why they can't play in the NFL.

Female not qualify for getting a sale job? it's gonna be damn hard to convince anyone that female aren't able to do the job.

That depends on who you're trying to convince.

 

[Plato]

I really don't thing that B&H is selling sex with cameras, so I doubt that this precedent applies here.

It's an established fact that owning a Nikon improves your sex life.

 

[DennyCrane]

Look at the NFL- If you own a team, and you want to fire your coach and hire that Superbowl winning guy that's suddenly available... and he's white... you can't. Not until you interview a black guy for the job. It's a written in stone NFL rule. It doesn't matter whether you have already made your decision before you fire your current coach. It's done in the name of diversity. So, every time a team needs a new coach, they fly in a black guy for an interview. Whether he has a chance or not.

I'm very sure a company as big as B&H knows the rules and the laws. I'd bet there was never anything provable in court saying "women need not apply". Whether it's a real policy or not, you're in business that long and get that big, you interview everyone from within and from the outside.

Yes, let's look at the NFL. How many female linebackers are in the NFL? You're not going to allege that absolutely NONE are qualified?

Why was the Hooter's lawsuit thrown out? Males wanted to wait on tables and were denied that opportunity.

So, you just read the first couple of words in a post and respond? Outstanding.

 

[schumionbike]

Female linebacker in the NFL, heck, even if you use the strict scrutiny standard, it's hard to convince any court that a female would have enough ability to play at that level.

Obviously you haven't seen the women that I've seen. Further, if they can play in the NHL (which they have), there's no reason why they can't play in the NFL.

Female not qualify for getting a sale job? it's gonna be damn hard to convince anyone that female aren't able to do the job.

That depends on who you're trying to convince.

I considered myself lucky not to have seen the women you have seen . I guess it's easier to convice you that female can play NFL football but they can't be a sale person in BH Photo.

 

[schumionbike]

I really don't thing that B&H is selling sex with cameras, so I doubt that this precedent applies here.

haha, there's a an idea.

 

[RyanLilly]

I really don't thing that B&H is selling sex with cameras, so I doubt that this precedent applies here.

haha, there's a an idea.

Yeah, I would buy cameras more often!

 

[Plato]

Look at the NFL- If you own a team, and you want to fire your coach and hire that Superbowl winning guy that's suddenly available... and he's white... you can't. Not until you interview a black guy for the job. It's a written in stone NFL rule. It doesn't matter whether you have already made your decision before you fire your current coach. It's done in the name of diversity. So, every time a team needs a new coach, they fly in a black guy for an interview. Whether he has a chance or not.

I'm very sure a company as big as B&H knows the rules and the laws. I'd bet there was never anything provable in court saying "women need not apply". Whether it's a real policy or not, you're in business that long and get that big, you interview everyone from within and from the outside.

Yes, let's look at the NFL. How many female linebackers are in the NFL? You're not going to allege that absolutely NONE are qualified?

Why was the Hooter's lawsuit thrown out? Males wanted to wait on tables and were denied that opportunity.

So, you just read the first couple of words in a post and respond? Outstanding.

So you have decreed that we must look at one portion of the NFL and we are not permitted to look at any other portion?

What else are we not permitted to consider?