Re: [UUPoly-L] On coming out Poly




On Feb 3, 2007, at 11:26 PM, CatDeville wrote:

<<david -- nope; it's plain and simple discrimination based on sexual
orientation.  and unless the state has made non-heteros a protected
class, or unless firing requires good cause, there's not much to be
done...>>

That's not true, as there was more involved than just discrimination based
on sexual orientation if you were holding hands and saying prayers at work.


And while it may not be illegal to fire without cause (a good number of
states permit dismissal without cause), one can win a civil suit based on
discrimination even when it's not specifically on the books that you're a
"protected class".

just to bring some caselaw to this discussion, specifically related to texas (Waldmiller v. Continental Exp., Inc.
74 S.W.3d 116 at 120 (TX app 2002)):


Initially, the complainant must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. Although the precise elements of discrimination will vary depending on the allegations, id. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. 1817, the complainant's burden at this stage of the case "is not onerous." Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089. In our circumstances, a prima facie case will be considered as established if Waldmiller can show that: (1) she was a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for the position she lost, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) others similarly situated were more favorably treated. See Urbano v. Cont'l Airlines, 138 F.3d 204, 206 (5th Cir.1998).

rgds, jenny




This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.