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 Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:45PM (#385739)

    Having to deal with seven police crusiers for parking out of the rain. Being pulled overr nearly every 100 miles during a roadtrip.

    I've got my propers.

    The issue is police violence, and it isn't specific to any particular race as that type of emphasis only change who is low man on the totem poll.

    I don't need you to speak on my behalf. People of color are not a homogenious group. And even amoung blacks there is a wide range of views on Black Lives Matter.

    Once you've been black, you can come back to the conversation. Until then, shut the fuck up.

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

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:21PM

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:21PM (#385856) Journal

    Once you've been black, you can come back to the conversation. Until then, shut the fuck up.

    I wanted you to explain your views on why the movement is full of shit. No need to be a hostile dick about it.