info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Are promotion requirements allowed.
37 views
Skip to first unread message
micky
Nov 29, 2022, 12:45:59 AM11/29/22
to
I heard a very insteresting interview with Cynt Marshall on C-span
radio.
In it she tells about how, when she was working at AT&T and might have
been up for a promotion, her very well intentioned supervisor advised
her to stop 1) wearing red shoes, 2) wear more black or maybe it was
just subdued colors, and to 3) take the braids out of her her (She's
black.)
She went home that night and did that, and she got that promotion and
others.
Later she was up for promotion to officer (What exactly does that mean?)
and another very well intentioned supervisor advised her to 4) wear more
white, 5) not laugh so loud, 6) change her name from cynt to cyndi or
cythia, and 7) stop saying blessed, say lucky instead.
My idealistic friend thinks all such demands on her are illegal, and I
suppose she'd say that even when relayed as good advice not by the
person who actually does the promoting but by her supervisor, that would
be illegal too.
Which of those, if any, do you think are illegal now?
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
radio.
In it she tells about how, when she was working at AT&T and might have
been up for a promotion, her very well intentioned supervisor advised
her to stop 1) wearing red shoes, 2) wear more black or maybe it was
just subdued colors, and to 3) take the braids out of her her (She's
black.)
She went home that night and did that, and she got that promotion and
others.
Later she was up for promotion to officer (What exactly does that mean?)
and another very well intentioned supervisor advised her to 4) wear more
white, 5) not laugh so loud, 6) change her name from cynt to cyndi or
cythia, and 7) stop saying blessed, say lucky instead.
My idealistic friend thinks all such demands on her are illegal, and I
suppose she'd say that even when relayed as good advice not by the
person who actually does the promoting but by her supervisor, that would
be illegal too.
Which of those, if any, do you think are illegal now?
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
Stuart O. Bronstein
Nov 29, 2022, 11:35:03 PM11/29/22
to
since they were made with the intention of overcoming sex
discrimination rather than bending to it, I doubt that those
statements were illegal. But the behaviors they referred to, the
reasons they had to make those statements, were likely illegal.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Elle N
Dec 1, 2022, 12:39:39 AM12/1/22
to
(or in the case of the hair, a certain, say conservative hair style)?
Or do only Black women have to meet these standards? Or only Black
men and Black women? Or only women?
And can it be proven that only the sub-group (either Black women; Black applicants
for promotion; or female applicants for promotion) has to meet such standards?
So far, I would want a lot more evidence of either race discrimination or sex
discrimination before I suggested the person lawyer up.
Rick
Dec 1, 2022, 11:58:11 AM12/1/22
to
"micky" wrote in message news:41taohpe7gqhe9bov...@4ax.com...
Well the question may be whether these were actually demands or just
suggestions. That is, was she told she had to do this as a condition of her
employment, or were these merely suggestions to help her get promoted.
Sounds like the latter, in which case it's hard to see any illegality here,
especially since she seemingly benefited from the suggestions.
--
suggestions. That is, was she told she had to do this as a condition of her
employment, or were these merely suggestions to help her get promoted.
Sounds like the latter, in which case it's hard to see any illegality here,
especially since she seemingly benefited from the suggestions.
--
micky
Dec 3, 2022, 11:22:50 AM12/3/22
to
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:58:08 -0800 (PST), "Rick"
a different supervisor the second time because she'd been promoted more
than once in between.
>> that would
>>be illegal too.
>>
>>Which of those, if any, do you think are illegal now?
>>
>
>Well the question may be whether these were actually demands or just
>suggestions. That is, was she told she had to do this as a condition of her
>employment, or were these merely suggestions to help her get promoted.
>Sounds like the latter,
Yes.
> in which case it's hard to see any illegality here,
>especially since she seemingly benefited from the suggestions.
So let me finish the story, as she told it. At the end of that day,
she was going to go home and implement the suggestions, but by later
that night she said to herself, Enough. I've done enough And, I like my
job. I don't have to have a promotion;
and she went in the next day and asked the same supervisor to help her
figure out how to say No to the promotion without getting fired. The
super said she'd take care of it. Than night, Cynd gets a phone call
from the chairman, I think it was** and he said, You've been doing a
good job the way you are. You don't have to change at all.
So she didn't, and she even had a cross on the wall of her office.
After she left ATT, she went on her own and got hired by the Dallas
Mavericks as CED. And how tactful she is, she was interviewed for about
45 minutes and I had to go look up what all she did to learn that she
was hired because the sexual harassment problems at the Maveraicks for
the previous 20 years. She didn't even hint at that.
**Doggone it, I deleted my notes, but I think that was it .
BTW, the EEOC that would enforce rules against racial discrimination was
created in 1965, but as I recall, they only took obvious cases for 10 or
20 or 25 years, where Blacks were not hired at all. It was quite some
time before they started worrying about indirect methods of not hiring
them, or even iirc not promoting them. And I would guess that for the
first 10 or 20 years, employers didn't feel the need to use indirect
methods, the ones who didn't want to ust didn't hire them, despite the
law, and it took that long for them to realize they can't get away with
that anymore.
Cynt was born in 1959. I thought she might have been too old to be
covered by this law when she started working, but I'm way off on that.
Time flies.
<ri...@nospam.com> wrote:
>"micky" wrote in message news:41taohpe7gqhe9bov...@4ax.com...
>>
>>I heard a very insteresting interview with Cynt Marshall on C-span
>>radio.
>>
>>In it she tells about how, when she was working at AT&T and might have
>>been up for a promotion, her very well intentioned supervisor advised
>>her to stop 1) wearing red shoes, 2) wear more black or maybe it was
>>just subdued colors, and to 3) take the braids out of her her (She's
>>black.)
>>
>>She went home that night and did that, and she got that promotion and
>>others.
>>
>>Later she was up for promotion to officer (What exactly does that mean?)
>>and another very well intentioned supervisor advised her to 4) wear more
>>white, 5) not laugh so loud, 6) change her name from cynt to cyndi or
>>cythia, and 7) stop saying blessed, say lucky instead.
>>
>>My idealistic friend thinks all such demands on her are illegal, and I
>>suppose she'd say that even when relayed as good advice not by the
>>person who actually does the promoting but by her supervisor,
As indeed that's how it was. Maybe I didn't make that clear. She had
>"micky" wrote in message news:41taohpe7gqhe9bov...@4ax.com...
>>
>>I heard a very insteresting interview with Cynt Marshall on C-span
>>radio.
>>
>>In it she tells about how, when she was working at AT&T and might have
>>been up for a promotion, her very well intentioned supervisor advised
>>her to stop 1) wearing red shoes, 2) wear more black or maybe it was
>>just subdued colors, and to 3) take the braids out of her her (She's
>>black.)
>>
>>She went home that night and did that, and she got that promotion and
>>others.
>>
>>Later she was up for promotion to officer (What exactly does that mean?)
>>and another very well intentioned supervisor advised her to 4) wear more
>>white, 5) not laugh so loud, 6) change her name from cynt to cyndi or
>>cythia, and 7) stop saying blessed, say lucky instead.
>>
>>My idealistic friend thinks all such demands on her are illegal, and I
>>suppose she'd say that even when relayed as good advice not by the
>>person who actually does the promoting but by her supervisor,
a different supervisor the second time because she'd been promoted more
than once in between.
>> that would
>>be illegal too.
>>
>>Which of those, if any, do you think are illegal now?
>>
>
>Well the question may be whether these were actually demands or just
>suggestions. That is, was she told she had to do this as a condition of her
>employment, or were these merely suggestions to help her get promoted.
>Sounds like the latter,
> in which case it's hard to see any illegality here,
>especially since she seemingly benefited from the suggestions.
she was going to go home and implement the suggestions, but by later
that night she said to herself, Enough. I've done enough And, I like my
job. I don't have to have a promotion;
and she went in the next day and asked the same supervisor to help her
figure out how to say No to the promotion without getting fired. The
super said she'd take care of it. Than night, Cynd gets a phone call
from the chairman, I think it was** and he said, You've been doing a
good job the way you are. You don't have to change at all.
So she didn't, and she even had a cross on the wall of her office.
After she left ATT, she went on her own and got hired by the Dallas
Mavericks as CED. And how tactful she is, she was interviewed for about
45 minutes and I had to go look up what all she did to learn that she
was hired because the sexual harassment problems at the Maveraicks for
the previous 20 years. She didn't even hint at that.
**Doggone it, I deleted my notes, but I think that was it .
BTW, the EEOC that would enforce rules against racial discrimination was
created in 1965, but as I recall, they only took obvious cases for 10 or
20 or 25 years, where Blacks were not hired at all. It was quite some
time before they started worrying about indirect methods of not hiring
them, or even iirc not promoting them. And I would guess that for the
first 10 or 20 years, employers didn't feel the need to use indirect
methods, the ones who didn't want to ust didn't hire them, despite the
law, and it took that long for them to realize they can't get away with
that anymore.
Cynt was born in 1959. I thought she might have been too old to be
covered by this law when she started working, but I'm way off on that.
Time flies.
micky
Dec 3, 2022, 11:23:53 AM12/3/22
to
In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 30 Nov 2022 21:39:34 -0800 (PST), Elle
only woman with her hair in braids, which might be much more popular
with black women.
And probably the only one saying bless-ed.
higher-ups dress and behave and they dress and act like them. They
probably all had summer jobs or earlier jobs and learned there. Most
people know how to dress for an interview, and they dress that way for
work until and unless they find out others don't dress so much, and they
can get away with it too.
>So far, I would want a lot more evidence of either race discrimination or sex
>discrimination before I suggested the person lawyer up.
For more of the story, see my next answer.
N <honda....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 11:45:59 PM UTC-6, micky wrote:
>> I heard a very insteresting interview with Cynt Marshall on C-span
>> radio.
>>
>> In it she tells about how, when she was working at AT&T and might have
>> been up for a promotion, her very well intentioned supervisor advised
>> her to stop 1) wearing red shoes, 2) wear more black or maybe it was
>> just subdued colors, and to 3) take the braids out of her her (She's
>> black.)
>>
>> She went home that night and did that, and she got that promotion and
>> others.
>>
>> Later she was up for promotion to officer (What exactly does that mean?)
>> and another very well intentioned supervisor advised her to 4) wear more
>> white, 5) not laugh so loud, 6) change her name from cynt to cyndi or
>> cythia, and 7) stop saying blessed, say lucky instead.
>>
>> My idealistic friend thinks all such demands on her are illegal, and I
>> suppose she'd say that even when relayed as good advice not by the
>> person who actually does the promoting but by her supervisor, that would
>> be illegal too.
>>
>> Which of those, if any, do you think are illegal now?
>
>Is there evidence that the company required others to meet such standards
>(or in the case of the hair, a certain, say conservative hair style)?
I dont' think anyone else was wearing red shoes. And she was probably
>On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 11:45:59 PM UTC-6, micky wrote:
>> I heard a very insteresting interview with Cynt Marshall on C-span
>> radio.
>>
>> In it she tells about how, when she was working at AT&T and might have
>> been up for a promotion, her very well intentioned supervisor advised
>> her to stop 1) wearing red shoes, 2) wear more black or maybe it was
>> just subdued colors, and to 3) take the braids out of her her (She's
>> black.)
>>
>> She went home that night and did that, and she got that promotion and
>> others.
>>
>> Later she was up for promotion to officer (What exactly does that mean?)
>> and another very well intentioned supervisor advised her to 4) wear more
>> white, 5) not laugh so loud, 6) change her name from cynt to cyndi or
>> cythia, and 7) stop saying blessed, say lucky instead.
>>
>> My idealistic friend thinks all such demands on her are illegal, and I
>> suppose she'd say that even when relayed as good advice not by the
>> person who actually does the promoting but by her supervisor, that would
>> be illegal too.
>>
>> Which of those, if any, do you think are illegal now?
>
>Is there evidence that the company required others to meet such standards
>(or in the case of the hair, a certain, say conservative hair style)?
only woman with her hair in braids, which might be much more popular
with black women.
And probably the only one saying bless-ed.
>
>Or do only Black women have to meet these standards? Or only Black
>men and Black women? Or only women?
You must have looked ahead in the book to know she is black.
>Or do only Black women have to meet these standards? Or only Black
>men and Black women? Or only women?
>
>And can it be proven that only the sub-group (either Black women; Black applicants
>for promotion; or female applicants for promotion) has to meet such standards?
I'm sure the others all do meet them, becuase they look at how the
>And can it be proven that only the sub-group (either Black women; Black applicants
>for promotion; or female applicants for promotion) has to meet such standards?
higher-ups dress and behave and they dress and act like them. They
probably all had summer jobs or earlier jobs and learned there. Most
people know how to dress for an interview, and they dress that way for
work until and unless they find out others don't dress so much, and they
can get away with it too.
>So far, I would want a lot more evidence of either race discrimination or sex
>discrimination before I suggested the person lawyer up.
Elle N
Dec 3, 2022, 12:17:00 PM12/3/22
to
On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 10:22:50 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:
[snip]
I do not think it was about "obvious" so much as the fact that it takes
some years for meaningful case law to develop
that fine tunes what is and what is not unlawful discrimination. Case
in point: Until 1986, making a work environment hostile on the basis
of race was not grounds for a complaint with the EEOC. E.g. an
employer who used the N-word regularly could not be held accountable
(or at least, no appeal went forward far enough to say otherwise).
In 1986, Vinson v. Meritor Savings Bank established for the first time
that a work environment hostile on the basis of race, sex, religion
(among other protected classes) could be unlawful workplace
discrimination.
The "intermediate level of scrutiny" for government discrimination
did not even exist until 1976. In Craig v. Boren, SCOTUS 1976,
then ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued on behalf of the
young men of Oklahoma to win the boys the right to buy 3.2 beer
when under the age of 21. (Females had been allowed to buy 3.2
beer at age 18. Outrageous.) Ginsburg's strategy back then revolved
around changing the level of scrutiny an alleged discrimination case
required in order for the case to be deemed unlawful discrimination.
I also happen to think government agencies very much reflect the
desires of the current president's administration.
Yes, I read about Cynt Marshall in advance of my first post. Though if
you want to suggest I made an assumption when you mentioned the
braids, then I plead guilty.
I have a legal problem with a cross on the wall of an office where underlings
might end up reporting. Today I believe an employer could nix such
a display and be on solid ground in doing so.
Did Marshall speak of the cross?
> Cynt was born in 1959. I thought she might have been too old to be
> covered by this law when she started working, but I'm way off on that.
> Time flies.
Trite though it may sound, Cynt Marshall appears to me to be amazing.
On the other hand, for a minority or woman to get ahead, I do not believe in the notion
that the minority or woman should have to look the other way (being superhuman)
at slights (and worse) directed at them. On the third hand, unlawful discrimination
happens all the time. In 99.99% of cases and for best outcomes, I now think that
the best outcome occurs by not rocking the boat. One should either
tough it out or go work for a different employer. One should leave
battles to those individuals or nonprofits with enough money to fight the
good fight.
[snip]
> and she went in the next day and asked the same supervisor to help her
> figure out how to say No to the promotion without getting fired. The
> super said she'd take care of it. Than night, Cynd gets a phone call
> from the chairman, I think it was** and he said, You've been doing a
> good job the way you are. You don't have to change at all.
>
> So she didn't, and she even had a cross on the wall of her office.
...
> figure out how to say No to the promotion without getting fired. The
> super said she'd take care of it. Than night, Cynd gets a phone call
> from the chairman, I think it was** and he said, You've been doing a
> good job the way you are. You don't have to change at all.
>
> So she didn't, and she even had a cross on the wall of her office.
> BTW, the EEOC that would enforce rules against racial discrimination was
> created in 1965, but as I recall, they only took obvious cases for 10 or
> 20 or 25 years, where Blacks were not hired at all. It was quite some
> time before they started worrying about indirect methods of not hiring
> them, or even iirc not promoting them. And I would guess that for the
> first 10 or 20 years, employers didn't feel the need to use indirect
> methods, the ones who didn't want to ust didn't hire them, despite the
> law, and it took that long for them to realize they can't get away with
> that anymore.
For the first couple of decades after the EEOC was established,
> created in 1965, but as I recall, they only took obvious cases for 10 or
> 20 or 25 years, where Blacks were not hired at all. It was quite some
> time before they started worrying about indirect methods of not hiring
> them, or even iirc not promoting them. And I would guess that for the
> first 10 or 20 years, employers didn't feel the need to use indirect
> methods, the ones who didn't want to ust didn't hire them, despite the
> law, and it took that long for them to realize they can't get away with
> that anymore.
I do not think it was about "obvious" so much as the fact that it takes
some years for meaningful case law to develop
that fine tunes what is and what is not unlawful discrimination. Case
in point: Until 1986, making a work environment hostile on the basis
of race was not grounds for a complaint with the EEOC. E.g. an
employer who used the N-word regularly could not be held accountable
(or at least, no appeal went forward far enough to say otherwise).
In 1986, Vinson v. Meritor Savings Bank established for the first time
that a work environment hostile on the basis of race, sex, religion
(among other protected classes) could be unlawful workplace
discrimination.
The "intermediate level of scrutiny" for government discrimination
did not even exist until 1976. In Craig v. Boren, SCOTUS 1976,
then ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued on behalf of the
young men of Oklahoma to win the boys the right to buy 3.2 beer
when under the age of 21. (Females had been allowed to buy 3.2
beer at age 18. Outrageous.) Ginsburg's strategy back then revolved
around changing the level of scrutiny an alleged discrimination case
required in order for the case to be deemed unlawful discrimination.
I also happen to think government agencies very much reflect the
desires of the current president's administration.
Yes, I read about Cynt Marshall in advance of my first post. Though if
you want to suggest I made an assumption when you mentioned the
braids, then I plead guilty.
I have a legal problem with a cross on the wall of an office where underlings
might end up reporting. Today I believe an employer could nix such
a display and be on solid ground in doing so.
Did Marshall speak of the cross?
> Cynt was born in 1959. I thought she might have been too old to be
> covered by this law when she started working, but I'm way off on that.
> Time flies.
On the other hand, for a minority or woman to get ahead, I do not believe in the notion
that the minority or woman should have to look the other way (being superhuman)
at slights (and worse) directed at them. On the third hand, unlawful discrimination
happens all the time. In 99.99% of cases and for best outcomes, I now think that
the best outcome occurs by not rocking the boat. One should either
tough it out or go work for a different employer. One should leave
battles to those individuals or nonprofits with enough money to fight the
good fight.
Mike Anderson
Jan 24, 2024, 3:57:02 PMJan 24
to
a while.)
So, Rick, if you play your cards right and flirt with the boss some and
maybe let him take you out to dinner and maybe fool around in the back
row of the theater afterwards, you might land that cushy new "position"
*wink*wink*
What do you mean "that's sexual harassment?" It's just a few suggestions
that you probably benefit from and I might be a boss in the company but
I'm not YOUR boss.
==============
Whether that was suggestions from the boss himself or from another
member of management that maybe wasn't in the direct chain of command
over you, I'd still say it's getting right up to the line even if it
wasn't crossing over it.
0 new messages