Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday August 08 2016, @08:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-kick-me-when-i'm-down dept.

[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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @09:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @09:23PM (#385471)

    The ideological witch hunt

    over-sensitive employee

    Wow, this summary is horribly bias. I was going to blame TheMightyBuzzard, but it appears that this was mostly copy-pasted from the original article. So yay, activist journalism (which is fine, assuming the person conducting it isn't being a hypocrite).

    Still, shouldn't SN at least pretend to be impartial in the summaries? It feels to me that the opinions and the editorializing should go in the comments, rather than the headlines. Maybe that's just me, though, who hasn't learned "this one weird trick to increase page views that THEY don't want you to know!"

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Type44Q on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:08AM

    by Type44Q (4347) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:08AM (#385555)

    this summary is horribly bias.

    Not to mention raciss.

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 09 2016, @01:30AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday August 09 2016, @01:30AM (#385580) Homepage Journal

    I intentionally throw right-wing biased stuff like this in every now and then to make a point about all the left-wing biased stuff that gets through without a word of complaint.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:40AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:40AM (#385648)

      What left wing biased stuff?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:37AM (#385689)

        Didn't you see the post about the Kepler NASA mission? Or the recent one about neutrinos? All that science shit is left wing propaganda, and nobody says diddly squat about it most times. Wake ups, Goapple!!! (It's "sheeple", but with "goats", get it?)

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:49AM

        by pe1rxq (844) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:49AM (#385691) Homepage

        When you move far enough to the right all the sane stuff is located to your left...

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:28AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:28AM (#385706) Homepage Journal

          And when you're too far to the left, you can't spot what I'm talking about. Not because of your position as such but because being far on either side of it comes with inherent intellectual dishonesty and self delusion.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:23PM (#385857)

            All you need to do is what was asked of you, a list of a couple of left wing stories that have recently made the front page. If you cannot do this your arguments do not stand on their own merits.

            You might ask why but its to see if your view of left wing is distorted by your own political opinions. Make your case my good man.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:16PM (#385792)

      Couldn't you just make a point in those discussions? You'll get informative mods, you'll make this site better, and you'll improve the discussion level.

      I like seeing different viewpoints, but please fact-check or provide backup sources. TFA lies about the facts to push an agenda and this site should have a higher standard than that.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:13PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:13PM (#385933) Homepage Journal

        I could but I usually don't bother reading them if the topic and headline are blatantly biased. Unless I just feel like trolling a bit. It saves me annoyance points for somewhere they'll be useful.

        "Lefty Cause of the Day Shown Correct by Lefty Institution Study"? Just not worth my time.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:29PM (#385939)

          Just not worth my time.

          I can understand that.

          Hopefully next time you'll, at least, submit a better quality right-leaning story that isn't sensational and factually incorrect.