• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


cbg last won the day on April 17

cbg had the most liked content!

About cbg

Recent Profile Visitors

2,845 profile views
  1. What law do you believe exists that requires HR (or anyone else) to fire anyone? For that matter, what makes you think HR has the authority to fire someone out of hand? How do you know nothing was done? Do you have access to the personnel files to know what kind of (non-firing) disciplinary action was taken?
  2. It is possible to be eligible for FMLA but not qualify for disability benefits. In the same way, it is possible to be approved for disability benefits but not be eligible for FMLA. The criteria are different.
  3. What is the reason for the docking? There are some valid and legal reasons to dock a salary; there are also some illegal reasons. There's no way for us to know which this is with the information you've provided. Salaried is only a pay method and means nothing in and of itself. What matters is whether you are salaried exempt or salaried non-exempt. Which are you?
  4. And I'm pretty sure that the responders here don't generally ask questions unless they need the information in order to answer your question, which is not as black and white as you evidently believe. Details matter.
  5. On the basis of what has been posted, he has no recourse against the employer. He may have one against the woman.
  6. You are misunderstanding what I wrote. Probably deliberately. However, what US law provides for doesn't matter a hill of beans to you, since Canadian law is not the same.
  7. If the sign is there then clearly you missed it. I'm not clear on what grounds you feel you have to contest.
  8. What I'm noticing, Matt, is that when the example is expressed in a way that you are allowed to do what you want to do and other people have to put up with it, you're fine with it. But when the example is expressed in a way that other people are allowed to do things and you have to put up with it, you think it's wrong and ought to be changed. That's why I think you think that only people who agree with you ought to be allowed to express opinions.
  9. First off, Canadian employment law and US employment law are not the same; there are significant differences. No one here is an expert on Canadian law. I know a few people who are, but none of them post here. Secondly, the exact job matters. In the US law, there are exceptions known as Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQ). These BFOQ's allow an employer to discriminate in a way that would not otherwise be permissible. The burden of proof that a BFOQ exists is on the employer; however, I don't think they'd have any difficulty at all proving a BFOQ for all salespeople in a women's lingerie store to be female. I don't know of many women who would be comfortable buying, or worse, trying on, lingerie with a male salesperson. In fact, the store could even face some legal liability unless the man was more than usually cautious in his behavior and speech. Now, if you were applying for an accountant's job in their corporate headquarters, that would be a different story.
  10. I think that since by your own acknowledgement the timing is too tight for them to have gotten together, your best bet is to wait and see what happens when they do.
  11. "Discriminating against you" by not letting you have the same privileges a longer-tenured employee has is not illegal.
  12. I don't remember seeing anything in the ADA that requires them to allow you to take time off for doctor's appointments at any time you like. Nor is the employer required to provide you with the accommodation you request, or even the one the doctor recommends; only one that works. Specifically what did you request? If the timing was as close as you imply, the department manager and HR may not yet have gotten together on arranging an accommodation when your request for the time off was refused.
  13. You don't have to like it. No one said you did. But do you understand that the Constitution protects their right to do so, just as it protects your right to your beliefs in the first place? THAT'S what you don't seem to be grasping - that other people have the same rights you do.
  14. Of course, but your whole point seems to be that only people who agree with you should be able to talk about controversial things.You don't seem to be able to grasp that other people have rights just as valid as yours and should be just as able as you to express their views. I was thinking about you today, Matt - may I call you Matt? Earlier today, a group of people who believe that only white people - make that straight, white, male people, should have any rights at all. Repugnant as their beliefs are, the Constitution grants them the right to express them. However, when a group of people with a different belief system protested - as is also their right under the Constitution - a car was driven directly into the crowd, killing at least one of those protesters. The driver of that car took the action that you asked about in the initial section of this thread - using lethal force against someone for taking actions that go against their beliefs. Do you think the driver of that car did right?
  15. So you're to be allowed freedom of speech, but no one else is to be allowed their opposition to your views?