Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Okay. I am a conservative have run my own businesses for many years. Two years after college, I bought my own home and three years after that I bought my first rental property -- using savings from my regular job to accumulate the savings for both down payments. Since then, I've never been without a side business even while working for corporations. When our family businesses became profitable enough that it was a waste of time work for a salary, I left the corporate world and have never regretted it.

 

I totally disagree with your notion that a fear of litigation should factor into any hiring decision. What possible litigation should I fear?

 

I don't fear hiring women, for example, because I don't engage in sexual harassment, nor do I permit it. I don't fear hiring black people because I treat people fairly. I don't fear litigation simply because I don't give people a reason to sue. If we're sued unfairly, why it be more likely to come from a black person than from anyone else? I just don't get it.

 

What kind of friends do you have anyway?

From what I found, it looks like litigation fear is real - but fear of litigation based on race is a personal bias.

http://www.thecbigroup.com/files/2011/12/Client_AvoidLitigation.pdf

In fact, entrepreneurs place fear of litigation near

the top of their list of business worries. And rightfully so—

America is a lawsuit-happy society

[Kaitlyn S]

I don't fear hiring women, for example, because I don't engage in sexual harassment, nor do I permit it. I don't fear hiring black people because I treat people fairly. I don't fear litigation simply because I don't give people a reason to sue. If we're sued unfairly, why it be more likely to come from a black person than from anyone else? I just don't get it.

 

What kind of friends do you have anyway?

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if you are fair. Let's say you hire a black and he turns out to be argumentative and unpleasant and causes an environment with is less conducive to work getting done. You'd like to get rid of him. You are being fair to do so, but to fire him, you may well win the case but may fork out a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees to do so. Lawyers are expensive and if he had gotten the NAACP legal team or Eric Holder behind him, you would be screwed even though you were totally fair.

 

Are you implying that my friends and I would hire a black person just so we could treat him like crap? I am getting the feeling that many of you think I'm just an awful person. You put motives in my head that just aren't there.

 

By the way, how often do you think somebody gets sued for sexual harassment when there was none? (Clearly I think it's pretty often.) Now obviously I would have no trouble hiring a woman fearing sexual harassment. But if I were a guy... well let's say you just added one more to the fears of getting sued.

[Kaitlyn S]

From what I found, it looks like litigation fear is real - but fear of litigation based on race is a personal bias.

http://www.thecbigro...dLitigation.pdf

 

Thanks. I appreciate getting a fair shake here.

[PassedOut]

From what I found, it looks like litigation fear is real - but fear of litigation based on race is a personal bias.

http://www.thecbigroup.com/files/2011/12/Client_AvoidLitigation.pdf

Winston, the tips in that article are general knowledge, and of course we have insurance. But I see have no reason to expect that a black person would be more likely to sue than anyone else.

[Winstonm]

Winston, the tips in that article are general knowledge, and of course we have insurance. But I see have no reason to expect that a black person would be more likely to sue than anyone else.

 

Of course. Fear of black litigation is grossly racist.

[Kaitlyn S]

Winston, the tips in that article are general knowledge, and of course we have insurance. But I see have no reason to expect that a black person would be more likely to sue than anyone else.

AARGH - you're playing IMPs friend, not matchpoints.

 

What does it cost if a white sues for racial discrimination? Is that even possible if you have no black employees?

 

What does it cost if a black sues for racial discrimination? (I suppose you could say "is that even possible if you have no white employees? :lol: )

[Winstonm]

Thanks. I appreciate getting a fair shake here.

 

The "fair shake" you received was simply me pointing out the fact that litigation fear by small businesses is real, while your specific fear of black litigation is racism. To be fair, I think you have the ability to change your outlook, that you perceive yourself as non-racist. And when you make that self change to reflect that skin color is nothing more than variation within the species and does not matter in any other fashion, I will be in front of the line to state my friend Kaitlyn is not a racist.

 

That ain't happening anytime soon, I bet.

[PassedOut]

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if you are fair. Let's say you hire a black and he turns out to be argumentative and unpleasant and causes an environment with is less conducive to work getting done. You'd like to get rid of him. You are being fair to do so, but to fire him, you may well win the case but may fork out a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees to do so. Lawyers are expensive and if he had gotten the NAACP legal team or Eric Holder behind him, you would be screwed even though you were totally fair.

 

Are you implying that my friends and I would hire a black person just so we could treat him like crap? I am getting the feeling that many of you think I'm just an awful person. You put motives in my head that just aren't there.

What if I hire a white woman and she turns out to be argumentative and unpleasant and we'd like to get rid of her. She decides to claim sexual harassment and gets Gloria Allred and the NOW legal team behind her?

 

When I was still in the corporate world, a white woman did raise a discrimination suit against the company and my boss in particular (the same boss I mentioned earlier in this thread). I was deposed in that case, and it was an interesting experience, and my only encounter with a situation like that.

 

But should I hesitate to hire white women because of that experience? Not on your life.

[Kaitlyn S]

The "fair shake" you received was simply me pointing out the fact that litigation fear by small businesses is real, while your specific fear of black litigation is racism. To be fair, I think you have the ability to change your outlook, that you perceive yourself as non-racist. And when you make that self change to reflect that skin color is nothing more than variation within the species and does not matter in any other fashion, I will be in front of the line to state my friend Kaitlyn is not a racist.

Did I not say that if it weren't for litigation fears I would have no problem hiring a black person? It's the legal system that is reflecting that skin color means something other than variation in the species; indeed, the legal system will make you pay more to defend yourself against a black's anti-discrimination suit than a white's. I can't control that.

 

You bid a heart game more often than a club game because the bridge laws say that hearts are worth more.

 

In an unwarranted discrimination case, (unwarranted because you are fair), you pay out more when sued by a black than by a white.

 

Just like the bridge laws make hearts and clubs different, the courts make blacks and whites different. I can't control the courts. If I could sign a contract saying that I will try to be fair and that they aren't allowed to sue for discrimination, and could make it binding, I'd hire the qualified black person in a heartbeat. But I think such a contract would be laughed out of court, so the courts are telling me that the black is like a club and the white is like a heart because my expectation is less with a black employee when possible court costs are factored in.

 

I think it's simple expectations, not racism that is causing this. As soon as the courts treat blacks and whites equally, the difference in expectation goes away and blacks get hired again.

[Kaitlyn S]

People! It doesn't matter whether you say it's racist to not hire blacks based on fear of litigation, my point is it's going to happen anyway because the fear is real and based on the courts, it's justified. Racist or not, it's going to happen based on pure business motives.

 

And personally, I think it sucks for the blacks.

 

But don't blame the employers. They are playing for the highest expectation. A lawsuit is like going down 2600.

 

Look - I am not trying to screw blacks when I want anti-discrimination lawsuits curbed. I am trying to help them.

 

Because I think they deserve a fair shake.

 

They deserve to be hired if qualified.

 

If an employer doesn't fear being sued, they may be hired. And then promoted. No problem promoting a black person if you can demote him later if you find out he can't hack the job without the danger of being sued.

 

I'm all for qualified blacks being hired and promoted. Let's make it not scary for that to happen.

[Winstonm]

Did I not say that if it weren't for litigation fears I would have no problem hiring a black person? It's the legal system that is reflecting that skin color means something other than variation in the species; indeed, the legal system will make you pay more to defend yourself against a black's anti-discrimination suit than a white's. I can't control that.

 

You bid a heart game more often than a club game because the bridge laws say that hearts are worth more.

 

In an unwarranted discrimination case, (unwarranted because you are fair), you pay out more when sued by a black than by a white.

 

Just like the bridge laws make hearts and clubs different, the courts make blacks and whites different. I can't control the courts. If I could sign a contract saying that I will try to be fair and that they aren't allowed to sue for discrimination, and could make it binding, I'd hire the qualified black person in a heartbeat. But I think such a contract would be laughed out of court, so the courts are telling me that the black is like a club and the white is like a heart because my expectation is less with a black employee when possible court costs are factored in.

 

I think it's simple expectations, not racism that is causing this. As soon as the courts treat blacks and whites equally, the difference in expectation goes away and blacks get hired again.

 

Kaitlyn, what you have to determine is whether or not your supposition is accurate. Is there really a higher risk of litigation from Afro-American hires or are you simply expressing a fictionalized account based on yours or someone else's (whom you believe) personal bias?

 

Donald Trump's father was sued for not renting to African Americans. Isn't it more likely that refusing to hire Afro-Americans and trying to hide it with silence will lead to discrimination lawsuits rather than not?

[PassedOut]

Did I not say that if it weren't for litigation fears I would have no problem hiring a black person? It's the legal system that is reflecting that skin color means something other than variation in the species; indeed, the legal system will make you pay more to defend yourself against a black's anti-discrimination suit than a white's. I can't control that.

 

You bid a heart game more often than a club game because the bridge laws say that hearts are worth more.

 

In an unwarranted discrimination case, (unwarranted because you are fair), you pay out more when sued by a black than by a white.

 

Just like the bridge laws make hearts and clubs different, the courts make blacks and whites different. I can't control the courts. If I could sign a contract saying that I will try to be fair and that they aren't allowed to sue for discrimination, and could make it binding, I'd hire the qualified black person in a heartbeat. But I think such a contract would be laughed out of court, so the courts are telling me that the black is like a club and the white is like a heart because my expectation is less with a black employee when possible court costs are factored in.

 

I think it's simple expectations, not racism that is causing this. As soon as the courts treat blacks and whites equally, the difference in expectation goes away and blacks get hired again.

All right. I have no information about the courts treating blacks better than whites (and from what I read about the criminal justice system, I'm sure that's not true in that arena). But could you provide any specific links to real cases where the courts have treated blacks better than whites in civil suits against small businesses?

 

And, by the way, the NAACP (and Holder, too, I'm sure) won't go after a business unless there is very substantial evidence of unfairness. Those people aren't idiots and they aren't monsters. They are professional people interested in rooting out actual unfairness, not on destroying businesses that treat people fairly.

[Kaitlyn S]

By the way, I appreciate that so far this particular discussion has remained somewhat civil. Both of you seem like smart and informed guys and I'm willing to consider your viewpoint when it makes sense. I just haven't seen a convincing argument why I'm wrong yet, but if I am wrong (and my argument still seems pretty strong to me right now but that can change) I may realize it if the right thing is said. At this point it sounds like your point is that an employer should ignore the difference in expectation imposed by the courts based on hiring a black as opposed to a white, and I am saying that while that might be noble, it's a stupid economic decision. If you can show me that it's not a stupid economic decision, then I will see that I have no case here.

[Winstonm]

By the way, I appreciate that so far this particular discussion has remained somewhat civil. Both of you seem like smart and informed guys and I'm willing to consider your viewpoint when it makes sense. I just haven't seen a convincing argument why I'm wrong yet, but if I am wrong (and my argument still seems pretty strong to me right now but that can change) I may realize it if the right thing is said. At this point it sounds like your point is that an employer should ignore the difference in expectation imposed by the courts based on hiring a black as opposed to a white, and I am saying that while that might be noble, it's a stupid economic decision. If you can show me that it's not a stupid economic decision, then I will see that I have no case here.

 

Your argument seems confused to me. You are saying the fear is of the courts - yet a case must be brought by a litigant before the courts get involved. This means that the individual employee must bring suit. That means a fear that Afro-Americans are by the color of their skin more litigious than other people. And that is something that could be researched and determined.

 

My question is if it turns out that white women bring the most lawsuits would that change your position about Afro-American hires?

[PassedOut]

At this point it sounds like your point is that an employer should ignore the difference in expectation imposed by the courts based on hiring a black as opposed to a white, and I am saying that while that might be noble, it's a stupid economic decision. If you can show me that it's not a stupid economic decision, then I will see that I have no case here.

I'm saying that I've seen no information that supports your contention that there is a difference in expectation imposed by the courts based on hiring a black as opposed to a white. I've been in business many years and have never seen it. And you haven't pointed me to any court cases that support your contention.

 

This discussion has reminded me, though, of the potential dangers of hiring white women. (Just kidding!)

:P

[Kaitlyn S]

Kaitlyn, what you have to determine is whether or not your supposition is accurate. Is there really a higher risk of litigation from Afro-American hires or are you simply expressing a fictionalized account based on yours or someone else's (whom you believe) personal bias?

 

Donald Trump's father was sued for not renting to African Americans. Isn't it more likely that refusing to hire Afro-Americans and trying to hide it with silence will lead to discrimination lawsuits rather than not?

Clearly I need to do some research to answer your first question.

 

i think it is very unlikely that whites win as often or as much money or are as costly to litigate against in discrimination cases than blacks.

 

However, I do not know in how many of the cases the lawsuit had merit.

 

Probably in some cases, the lawsuit had no merit but the suing black had reason to think he was being discriminated against. It could be as simple as the boss drawing straws and a couple of whites getting promoted ahead of the black. The black wasn't discriminated against but he thought he was. So he sues and it costs the employer money. If it was a white employee, the suit never would have happened.

 

I don't think it's my own bias but I know that I would have that fear and would be surprised if others who actually were in a position to hire people didn't have the same fear whether it was justified or not. And I'm not even saying that it's justified, as long as the fear is there, blacks are getting hired less. I really don't see how you can argue with that. And I'm all for changing the situation so that the fear isn't there and blacks do not get hired less. Because I don't think that people that run businesses really have it in for blacks. They are simply looking out for the bottom line.

 

Your question about hiding not hiring blacks: If you have to hire 100 people, and none of them are black, you are going to get caught, so you have to suck up the fear of being sued because you're getting sued anyway. And isn't this just a great position for an employer to be in - they have to risk being sued in order to avoid being sued - all because the courts may award a black person who says he was discriminated against a payment or make it expensive for that not to happen.

 

If you are a small business owner and hire six people, you're probably not going to get caught. You could simply give a test to your applicants and say you took the highest grades. I would hope that would stand up in court.

 

Donald Trump's father lived in a different era. If the lawsuit issue was gone, I think very few people today would have a blanket policy to not hire blacks.

 

But your post and PassedOut's last post are telling me that I need to look deeper into the situation before continuing, because I am coming to a point where I need to gather some facts to back me up. While it is not possible to find out how many people refused to hire a black because of fear of a lawsuit, it is possible to find out how successful these lawsuits are, and it might even be possible to find out how costly they are when they aren't successful. Whether the suits had merit or not is going to be a lot harder to find out, for whether the suit was won is probably more correlated with the relative skills of the lawyers than the merits of the case.

[Kaitlyn S]

My question is if it turns out that white women bring the most lawsuits would that change your position about Afro-American hires?

Of course. Hiring should be a purely economic decision. Don't you agree?

[PassedOut]

I googled "unfair discrimination suits" and didn't see any specific cases to look at. I did see a couple of links, but the contents didn't worry me:

 

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

 

THE TOP TEN MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT SUING YOUR EMPLOYER FOR DISCRIMINATION

[Kaitlyn S]

I tried using many different sets of search terms and could not find out the percentage of racial discrimination cases filed by blacks (or minorities) or the amounts won. Most search terms sent me to EEOC articles. One said that there were over thirty thousand racial discrimination cases filed in 2012. I have to think most of them were minorities.

 

However, many of the articles pointed out actual discrimination. This is wrong also. But I have to wonder how many of the non hires were not because the minority was considered bad, but instead for the reasons I am stating - that they are afraid that if they don't promote the minority worker later or have to let him go, they face legal challenges. Because TBH I don't see any other economic reason not to hire the qualified minority person, and for these companies, it's the bottom line, baby.

 

Maybe I have to dig harder to find the statistics I'm looking for - it may not be Googleable but it may be there if I happen to hit upon the right government website and follow the links down. In any event, something that I thought would take 20 minutes now seems like it will take hours and might bear no fruit.

[PassedOut]

Well let me know if you find something real.

 

I've been alternating working on my computer and (less productively) making these posts. Going to sign off now and get some sleep!

 

Anyway, I think I'd have heard of it if this were a real problem, and I'm too old to start worrying about unlikely scenarios now. If actually being fair doesn't protect me, I guess that will be tough. (I'll end up okay in any event.)

[Winstonm]

Enough for now. I appreciate your honesty in describing your thinking on this matter.

[Kaitlyn S]

Well let me know if you find something real.

 

I've been alternating working on my computer and (less productively) making these posts. Going to sign off now and get some sleep!

 

Anyway, I think I'd have heard of it if this were a real problem, and I'm too old to start worrying about unlikely scenarios now. If actually being fair doesn't protect me, I guess that will be tough. (I'll end up okay in any event.)

I appreciate the time you spent on this (especially as you could have used it more fruitfully on BBO :) ) I applaud small business owners and hope that being fair does protect you, for I think it's very unfair when somebody takes it on the chin through no fault of his own.

[helene_t]

Look - I am not trying to screw blacks when I want anti-discrimination lawsuits curbed. I am trying to help them.

I think this is an interesting discussion.

 

A somewhat related problem with which I do have experience with from the Netherlands is discrimination against people of (perceived) risk of sick leave, disability or pregnancy. I think it is generally accepted that the Dutch labour market is not very inclusive because of the difficulty of firering people for health related reasons. If a British worker gets ill you just fire him. If a Danish worker gets ill you ask the municipality or his unemployment insurance to pay him. If a Dutch worker gets ill you have to continue to pay him so that means that you'd better not have hired him in the first place. OK I am oversimplifying a bit but you get the picture.

 

Of course it is a somewhat limited analogy since unlike sick leave (which is a real cost which someone has to pay for) skin colour ought to be a non-issue. Therefore, my thought is that while the problem you mention no doubt exists, I would think that it is more important to protect minorities who actually get discriminated against, if only in order to educate the public that discrimination is no-no.

 

Courts are not exactly known for a bias in favour of minorities so I wouldn't think that many employers would be afraid of such lawsuits. But I might be wrong. It is a bit similar to the discussion about affirmative action. Once, after I got a job in the Netherlands, one of my new colleagues joked that "we have a quota for ethnic minorities, one for women and one for disabled people so by hireing Helene we could afford to hire two normal engineers at the same time". I could laugh at that but I can imagine that not everyone would find it funny. I tend to think that the pros are bigger than the cons when it comes to affirmative action but I am a bit ambivalent.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn, I do hope that you understand that these lawsuits that you so fear apply not only when you fire people but also when you make a hiring decision...

The opinions that you are expressing here would most definitely be legally actionable during a hiring discrimination lawsuit and rightfully so.

 

With this said and done, I think that you are an outright bigot who has (partially) learned to control her language. As Lee Atwater famously said:

 

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

[hrothgar]

I tried using many different sets of search terms and could not find out the percentage of racial discrimination cases filed by blacks (or minorities) or the amounts won. Most search terms sent me to EEOC articles. One said that there were over thirty thousand racial discrimination cases filed in 2012. I have to think most of them were minorities.

 

You do understand that your basic methodology is inherently flawed, right?

 

You really aren't going to find many cases in which a non protected class is filing a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination