usjacket
Senior
- Aug 30, 2002
- 310
- 52
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-0...elta-blog_x.htm Watch yerself out there!
Delta Employee Fired For Blogging!
- Thread starter usjacket
- Start date
Beer Guzzler
Advanced
usjacket said:
This is the now famous "Queen of the Sky".. It is rather old news, but a good reminder non-the-less..
Queen of the Sky
B
B.O.B.
Guest
I hope her lawsuit is so big that Delta chokes on the settlement!
Yea right, and the Queen of England is only 39 years plus one. The real reason she was fired is they need some young blood to attract more businessmen NAPAUS said:
[post="297950"][/post]
Give me a break! Are you saying that a union is needed so that employees are protected when they unprofessionally disply the company's uniform, etc?! We should unionize the military, too, so that they can misrepresent their organization and not be held accountable. Give me a break!! This is why union "protection" is ridiculous in some instances. Unions were meant to guard against corrupt management...not protect corrupt employees. This is a case of the latter...no question about that. I don't feel sorry for her losing her job over risque pictures in the workplace.
lostplanetairman
Advanced
- Jan 12, 2005
- 165
- 4
B.O.B. said:
Remember that the EEOC is declining to sue and is issuing a "right to sue" letter.
When someone files a complaint with the EEOC, there is an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, if the EEOC finds that there is reasonable cause, they could sue or join in on a suit brought by the complainant. If the EEOC finds that the case is not substantiated or not strong enough, they issue their finding of "no reasonable cause", and issue a "right to sue letter." This allows the complainant to pursue private litigaton. Or a complainant can ask the EEOC to cease the investigation, administratively close the case, and issue the "right to sue letter." With the amount of time that has elapsed (she filed the complaint on October 8, 2004), the first scenario is most likely. Given that the EEOC investigates and tries to get the parties to mediate to avoid lawsuits, absent a finding of reasonable cause by the EEOC prevailing in court is much more difficult.
In FY 2004, 19% of the sex related complaints were closed administratively and 58% of the complaints were found to be without merit. Only 23% of the complaints filed received merit resolutions--but to the tune of $100 million (which does not include monetary benefits obtained through litigation)! The big sex discrimination lawsuit in FY 2004 was against Morgan Stanley and was settled for $54 million!
HR Diva
B
B.O.B.
Guest
lostplanetairman said:
Have you ever heard of "wrongful termination" Ms. HR Diva? Delta, is notorious for this kind of crap. They live in a bubble down in ATL. This time the bubble has been popped and Delta is up you know what without a paddle!
coolflyingfool
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,192
- 1
Go get'm Queen!!
lostplanetairman
Advanced
- Jan 12, 2005
- 165
- 4
B.O.B. said:Have you ever heard of "wrongful termination" Ms. HR Diva? Delta, is notorious for this kind of crap. They live in a bubble down in ATL. This time the bubble has been popped and Delta is up you know what without a paddle!
[post="299266"][/post]
Not in my company! LOL--we do it right--fair, square and legal!
She can sue all she wants--my point is that the EEOC has declined to do so after, in all liklihood, conducting their own investigation after she filed a complaint with them last year.
HR Diva
TheDog2004
Senior
- Mar 26, 2004
- 267
- 0
she wasn't fired for blogging. she was fired for making the company look bad.
that's a fireable offense anywhere - union or no union. any airline would have fired her and no union would waste time or money defending her case. the fact that the EEOC won't take up her cause is a big indicator of how much of a case she has - none.
that's a fireable offense anywhere - union or no union. any airline would have fired her and no union would waste time or money defending her case. the fact that the EEOC won't take up her cause is a big indicator of how much of a case she has - none.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
Ch. 12 said:
Dunno.... from the pictures I saw six months ago when this all started up, she certainly does not have a career as a supermodel ahead of her, so this is her next best way to raise cash?
The issue wasn't the fact that she was blogging -- it was the pictures of her posing onboard the aircraft with her underwear hanging out of her uniform which got her fired.
Were the so-called male employees in various stages of wardrobe malfunction? I doubt it. And that's probably why EEOC refused to get involved beyond the "right to sue" which is essentially the same as the "right to waste money on your own lawyers" letter.
Actually, they were dressed in their birthday suits in some of the pictures. Others had them wearing part of their uniforms. Ok, I enjoyed it, but it is discrimination and she will win for that reason alone. Those two....ahem, gentlemen were disciplined but were not fired.
