SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Update. It appears the original submission was skewing the facts. From the What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case) on the EEOC (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commision) web site:
What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case)
- This decision addressed only the procedural issue of whether the Complainant's allegations of discrimination should be dismissed or investigated. This decision was not on the merits, did not determine that the Gadsden Flag was racist or discriminatory, and did not ban it.
- Given the procedural nature of this appeal and the fact that no investigative record or evidence had been developed yet, it would have been premature and inappropriate for EEOC to determine, one way or the other, the merits of the U.S. Postal Service's argument that the Gadsden Flag and its slogan do not have any racial connotations whatsoever.
- EEOC's decision simply ordered the agency - the U.S. Postal Service - to investigate the allegations. EEOC's decision made no factual or legal determination on whether discrimination actually occurred.
The original story follows. --martyb]
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined in a preliminary ruling that wearing clothing featuring the Gadsden Flag constitutes legally actionable racial harassment in the workplace. In short, wearing the Gadsden flag while at work can earn you the title of "racist", earn you harassment charges, and cost you your job. The ideological witch hunt started back in 2014 when a black employee at a privately owned company filed a complaint with the EEOC when he saw a co-worker wearing a hat featuring the Gadsden flag and the words "Don't tread on me." The EEOC has decided to side with the over-sensitive employee, despite already admitting that the flag originated in a non-racial context and has been adopted by multiple non-racial political groups, countless companies and more, since it was created.
The ruling is a preliminary ruling and has not yet been made "official" but the preliminary ruling says that you can be charged with "racial harassment." They have not indicated when an "official" ruling will be made and it is ongoing.
Source: American Military News
Better Source: Washington Post
Facts: EEOC
(Score: 5, Informative) by TrumpetPower! on Monday August 08 2016, @09:14PM
Seriously guys...can we please link to primary sources when it's easy and obvious to do so? The article mentions it, doesn't link to it, but it's the top hit in the most obvious search:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/03/wearing-dont-tread-on-me-insignia-could-be-punishable-racial-harassment/ [washingtonpost.com]
The article linked to in the summary is rather breathless in its passion, which is great for the guy who wrote it...but the original WaPo article presents the same facts in a calm and even-handed way that doesn't make one tend to dismiss it as the insane lunatic rantings of a nutjob conspiracy theorist.
What's more, Volokh's analysis makes the point that this could potentially open up employers to civil liability if they fail to prohibit major-party presidential candidate insignia (like bumper stickers) and otherwise censor political speech (including in the break room) -- a much, much bigger concern than the silliness of thinking the rattlesnake flag is racist.
It's not hard, guys. It really isn't. And it's the frickin' job the editors signed up to do!
And you can still link to the hyperbolic commentary, if you want; just do so after the primary sources and label it as editorializing from so-and-so.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Touché) by jdavidb on Monday August 08 2016, @10:08PM
Seriously guys...can we please link to primary sources when it's easy and obvious to do so?
Look, do we even read the articles? If so, what is this place coming to? :)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Touché) by jdavidb on Monday August 08 2016, @10:10PM
It's not hard, guys. It really isn't. And it's the frickin' job the editors signed up to do!
Maybe if we offered a higher salary for the position we could attract better quality editing.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @10:32PM
You're absolutely right!
I'm going to double the pay of all the editors.
*Looks at their current pay ... Damn, I should've offered to triple their pay.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @01:57PM
Well, I'm going to quadruple their pay, then listen to them bitch when the IRS wants an accounting. 0/