Southwest Airlines employee subject to repeated N-word usage

stankeylegjones said:
Once again, do you think calling someone "bitch" after they asked you not to would elevate it to that level? Do you think that is a racially motivated word?

I'm fairly certain you're just trolling now, because you are smart enough to know the answer, via examples, to your question.
Click to expand...

I think it would elevate to that level and not be a racially motivated word. I think n- would also rise to that level and would be a racially motivated word. I don't get your point but if you are saying that not all slurs that might make a hostile workplace are racial slurs, I agree with you.

What I'm arguing is that no matter who says n-, it will likely rise to the level of a hostile workplace and that's because its a racist term.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think it would elevate to that level and not be a racially motivated word. I think n- would also rise to that level and would be a racially motivated word. I don't get your point but if you are saying that not all slurs that might make a hostile workplace are racial slurs, I agree with you.

What I'm arguing is that no matter who says n-, it will likely rise to the level of a hostile workplace and that's because its a racist term.
Click to expand...
This discussion (and this poster) illustrates what we are losing in a world where folks are resistant to learning about race and racism and folks just have no education about the meaning of language.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I would agree that you can create a hostile work environment by calling someone names but the names would have to be somewhat offensive. Calling someone buddy or dude, even if the person that it's directed at doesn't really like it, probably wouldn't rise to the level of a hostile workplace. But calling someone an n- is almost certainly going to rise to that hostile workplace level if the person receiving the slur doesn't like it.

So what's the difference? It's not that the person its directed at doesn't like it. And it's not the race of the person who said the word. If a black guy or a white guy called you dude, you're not going to get a whole lot of juries thinking it's a hostile workplace. So the more likely explanation is that n- is racist no matter who says it.
Click to expand...
I think it’s just as likely the black guy doesn’t like being called the n-word no matter who says it.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the person saying it is racist. If the guy saying it is doing it just because he knows the word gets under the guy’s skin so he keeps doing it, that is creating a hostile work environment.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think it would elevate to that level and not be a racially motivated word. I think n- would also rise to that level and would be a racially motivated word. I don't get your point but if you are saying that not all slurs that might make a hostile workplace are racial slurs, I agree with you.

What I'm arguing is that no matter who says n-, it will likely rise to the level of a hostile workplace and that's because its a racist term.
Click to expand...
That is not what you were asking/saying earlier.
And, as pointed out before by many posters, your last sentence is just wrong.
 
ChileG said:
I think it’s just as likely the black guy doesn’t like being called the n-word no matter who says it.
Click to expand...

gtyellowjacket said:
Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. I'm not sure how that's different than what I said.
Click to expand...
I think you are saying the person saying the n-word must be a racist, and I’m saying not necessarily. But I’m tired and might have misunderstood what you are saying.
 
ChileG said:
I think you are saying the person saying the n-word must be a racist, and I’m saying not necessarily. But I’m tired and might have misunderstood what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Good question. I was really saying it was a racist slur but if someone repeatedly uses a racist slur does that make them a racist? I don't think so but I'd have to think more about it.
 
ChileG said:
I think it’s just as likely the black guy doesn’t like being called the n-word no matter who says it.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the person saying it is racist. If the guy saying it is doing it just because he knows the word gets under the guy’s skin so he keeps doing it, that is creating a hostile work environment.
Click to expand...
This. It does not matter whether the person saying it is racist. That will not come up in the trial. The person who uttered the phrase will not be testifying.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I use the eyeball ignore method for him. I used to argue with him but we would just get nasty with each other and I didn't want to be like that. Then he started talking about his divorce and losing his job and his struggles with mental illnesses and now his sick relative that was going to keep him from posting and I felt sorry for him. I didn't want to pile on.

So usually I'll read the first sentence or two, ignore the other 6 paragraphs, but never respond. I might respond to someone else making the same point. In this case. I would ask again. What would make this a hostile workplace if it wasn't racist? And you can't claim anything the victim doesn't like and complains about. It would need to be hostile to a jury... Like a racial slur.
Click to expand...
Dude, you can put me on full ignore. Do you think it will hurt my feelings?

There are plenty of people here who value my posts. I will continue to converse with them. If you don't want to pay attention to what I write, that's your loss. Really.
 
superrific said:
This. It does not matter whether the person saying it is racist. That will not come up in the trial. The person who uttered the phrase will not be testifying.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t the person using the N-word testify? I have an idea - it’d be stupid for him/her to testify. In your opinion, why wouldn’t that person testify?
 
Zoo_View said:
Why wouldn’t the person using the N-word testify? I have an idea - it’d be stupid for him/her to testify. In your opinion, why wouldn’t that person testify?
Click to expand...
1. The person can't avoid testifying if given a valid subpoena. In most circumstances, the person would not be asked. The relevant issues are what did the company know, when did it know about it, and what did it do about it. Also, perhaps, whether there was a pattern of this behavior across the organization.

The plaintiff won't call the person because the person can't help his case. The testimony by the plaintiff will be that he was subjected to this harassment; calling the person would only potentially lead to fact-muddying (e.g. the plaintiff called me a name first). The defense won't call the person because the defense's case will be something like, 'we responded to the complaint appropriately and with due care' and the people who can speak to those issues are the supervisors, the HR people, etc.

2. There are some conceivable circumstances in which the alleged foul-mouthed men might testify. For instance, if the company denies that anyone ever said the n-word. Maybe the alleged speaker would testify to say, "no, no, I said that he was bigger" or something like that. One could also imagine a circumstance in which the plaintiff calls the speaker to testify that he was instructed by management to racially harass the plaintiff.

But these are far-fetched hypos. They are also changing the fact pattern discussed here. The busy bee wants us to assume that the n-word was spoken by a black employee, aimed at a different employee, without being directed to do so by a supervisor. And if that's the case, the alleged speaker will likely have nothing to add.

3. The plaintiff could call a different employee to testify as to the hostility of the work environment. This employee could be of any race. A white guy could say, "oh, yeah, it was really bad. I couldn't believe what I was hearing," or "plaintiff was my friend and I could see how it was really hurting him to hear those words and be unable to do anything about it." The company could also call a different employee to testify as to the plaintiff's seeming indifference to the words, and that the concern with the foul language seemed to spring up after he was fired on other grounds.

What isn't going to happen is the n-word man take the stand and have to testify as to whether he is a racist. Nobody cares.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top