Discrimination Archive

Are you Gay Enough to Play Ball? Prove it

November 29th, 2011. By AbiK

Sexual preference has long been a hot-button discrimination topic in the courts. Only typically, it tends to be a straight v. gay/bi/lesbian/transgender type of situation. Not a intra-LGBT thing. They’re supposed to all be on the same team, right? Which is why this latest lawsuit settlement makes you take pause.

Seems there was a lawsuit filed by three gay softballers after they were disqualified from a softball competition—the 2008 Gay Softball World Series (sidenote: the New York Times ran a priceless headline on the story: “Three Straights and You’re Out in Gay Softball League“)

Why? Because the men were thought to be too—don’t utter the word!—heterosexual. And, as the name of the Gay Softball World Series denotes, one must be gay—and gay enough—to play ball. Not hetero. Not even bi.

So the men—who claim to be varying degrees of gay—filed a discrimination lawsuit against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance and sought not only to have their team’s second place standing in the Series restored, but also each sought $75,000 in damages for emotional distress.

The whole thing raises some interesting questions. For one, it puts the honor system of labelling oneself as “gay” in question. Well, is he or isn’t he? How can we be sure? In other amateur sports it’s common to self-declare your skill level—and you may indeed be challenged on that if, say, you declare yourself to be a much less-skilled player merely to boost your W-L ratio. But self-declaration in such instances is about the obvious—it’s about skill; and skill as such is fairly conspicuous.

But your level of gayness? That’s a behind-closed-doors type of thing—at least as far as proof is concerned.

It also presents a pretty ugly side of discrimination—”it’s not ok to treat me differently because I’m gay, but since you’re only half-gay (aka, “bi”), well, that’s different”. Uh-huh.

At the time of the 2008 Gay Softball World Series, there had been a “straight cap” that limited the number of heterosexual players a team could have to two—otherwise you had to be gay, as in 100% gay. (A bit odd that hetero’s were allowed at all, no?) However, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance has since changed how it defines “gay”. Gay now includes bisexual and transgender people. How nice to be included.

The lawsuit, filed by San Francisco team members Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ, has settled according to an NYT update, with the three men receiving an undisclosed sum—and their team will recoup their second place finish.

Tags: Discrimination Lawsuit, Gay Softball World Series, LGBT, North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, Settlement
Posted in Discrimination, lawsuits | 9124No Comments »2011-11-29+19%3A00%3A02AbiK

Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination Class Action: Slice, Dice and Onward Ho

October 27th, 2011. By AbiK

Walmart Cart Wal Mart Sex Discrimination Class Action: Slice, Dice and Onward Ho Close to 80% of you who voted in our poll that asked, “Did the Wal-Mart women have a case?” responded in the affirmative. Clearly, you disagreed with the US Supreme Court after it determined that the original class action lacked a cohesive enough group of plaintiffs (i.e., a “class”) with similar circumstances.

Well, as the saying goes, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned—and sure as shootin’ there are still some mighty ticked off former female Wal-Mart employees who aren’t wanting to just let it ride. Their attorneys aren’t backing down either. They’re just moving on to plan B.

Plan B in this case is to slice and dice the original class action lawsuit—which was nationwide–into smaller regional sex discrimination cases. The first case has just been filed in California—so a heads up to the estimated 45,000 or so current and former California Wal-Mart workers: this is one to watch.

The new smaller lawsuits still allege Wal-Mart discriminated against female employees by paying them less than their male counterparts, and by promoting women less often.

Stay tuned.

Tags: California, Class Action, Wal-Mart Class Action, Wal-Mart Gender Discrimination, Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination
Posted in Class Action, Discrimination, Employment | 8977No Comments »2011-10-27+20%3A59%3A45AbiK

White Castle 290 lb Craver Files Lawsuit to Sit

September 13th, 2011. By AbiK

Martin Kessman is, no doubt, a Craver—as in White Castle Craver. The type of guy for whom fast food is about the total all-in experience. So I envision his trips to White Castle completely titillate the senses—from inhaling the grease-laden air that greets him in the parking lot—sometimes with a hint of onion—to squinting at the back-lit menu behind the counter, while the blur of White Castle job agents (that’s what they’re called) provides a reassuring “we’re on it” to affirm his order will be up momentarily. Yes, it’s Martin Kessman’s zone. Or was. Until something shook the very core of his comfort at White Castle, and, he sued.

So now there’s this White Castle Lawsuit.

Here’s the deal. Martin Kessman likes White Castle burgers. In fact, it’s reported that he likes the “Sack Meal 2″ (that oughta getcha salivatin’—Sliders in a Sack! That’s Sack Meal 2 shown above, coming in at over 1,000 calories.). But Kessman likes them not in a car, or a plane or a train—but INSIDE White Castle. And Kessman’s a big guy. He’s 290 pounds big. He needs a 290 pound-worthy place to sit and enjoy his Sack of a meal. And, well, the chairs at White Castle—at least the one he frequents in upstate New York—are benches that are bolted to the floor. You can’t pull them out to adjust them to your girth, which Kessman needs to do.

You can’t move the tables either—they’re also bolted down—and Kessman claims to have injured his knee by banging it into the steel support legs in an attempt to sit comfortably. See, Kessman claims the distance between the bolted down chairs and tables are discriminatory to fat people—he can’t fit in without discomfort or apparently knee injury.

So none of this sits well (forgive the pun) with Kessman. And the fact that there aren’t moveable chairs at White Castle is certainly not due to any lack of effort on his part. He’s complained to White Castle. He’s written to corporate headquarters about it. And as the New York Post reported, White Castle even responded by saying that they would be changing the seating—and they even included specs for Kessman to see. Oh, and they sent him some coupons for some burgers. That was over two years ago.

But you know how these corporate-driven changes go…

So Kessman hasn’t witnessed the bolted-down benches being swapped out for four-legged slider chairs (couldn’t resist) and he’s now getting really serious about this whole thing. So the civil liberties lawsuit has been filed. Kessman’s suing for new (presumably more spacious) White Castle chairs, and unspecified damages.

I don’t know how many people out there have really taken affront to White Castle’s seating set-up, but I’m guessing most folks who frequent the fast-food chain are less concerned about comfortable seating and more concerned about downing some sliders—somewhere else. I’m not thinking—in the scheme of things—that this really warrants legal action.

Oh but wait, if this settles—or actually goes to court—I may be able to start a list of all the places I go where things just aren’t made to accommodate tall people, which I am. And guess what? My legs—my knees—slam into practically everything wherever I’m seated! So maybe thanks are in order for Martin Kessman—after all, I can’t help that I’m tall any more than Martin Kessman can help that he’s 290 pounds, right?

Tags: ADA, Civil Liberties, Discrimination, Martin Kessman, White Castle
Posted in Class Action, Discrimination, Emerging Issues | 86977 Comments »2011-09-13+16%3A14%3A06AbiK

Should Dwarfism Preclude Working at Starbucks?

August 23rd, 2011. By AbiK

“Dwarfism is not a disease and opinions vary within the dwarf community about whether dwarfism is a disability. Dwarfism is a recognized condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act . Short stature can make some activities of daily living harder, such as using an ATM or gas pump. But most people with dwarfism have active, healthy lives and normal life spans.”

That’s a quote from WomensHealth.gov. The bold is from me as it caught my eye…is dwarfism a disability that’s rightly covered by the ADA? WomensHealth.gov is one of the sites I clicked through in order to try to gain more insight on the recent discrimination settlement where Starbucks agreed to pay $75,000 to a woman, Elsa Sallard, who has dwarfism and was let go after only three days of training as a Starbucks barista (“barista” being the adopted from Italy and seemingly inflated on US soil moniker for someone who makes, pours and hands over coffee, espresso or that quad venti skinny with whip iced caramel macchiato).

So Sallard, whose actual height has not been reported, must be 4 feet, 10 inches tall or less—as that’s the height one needs to be in order to be considered a dwarf (according to MedlinePlus, though the Mayo Clinic defines a typical range of “2 feet 8 inches (81 centimeters) to 4 feet 8 inches (142 centimeters)”). Four feet ten inches in and of itself would not seem to be a disability so I’m going on the assumption that whatever height Sallard is, she’s shorter than one needs to be to perform barista duties.

Regardless, she requested a stool or step ladder in order to facilitate her work behind the Starbucks counter. According to Reuters, the Starbucks manager at the location (El Paso, TX) where Sallard was being trained “ignored” her request and subsequently fired her, claiming she’d pose a danger to employees and customers.

While this may not be popular with all readers, I can see the manager’s point of view. I may not totally agree with it, and it certainly doesn’t align with how the ADA is worded**, but I can see where he might have been coming from. Particularly if the El Paso Starbucks was anything like a Manhattan Starbucks.

(**btw, the ADA considers a qualified individual with a disability to be “a person who meets legitimate skill, experience, education, or other requirements of an employment position that s/he holds or seeks, and who can perform the eessential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. Requiring the ability to perform “essential” functions assures that an individual with a disability will not be
considered unqualified simply because of inability to perform marginal or incidental job functions. If the individual is qualified to perform essential job functions except for limitations caused by a disability, the employer must consider whether the individual could perform these functions with a reasonable accommodation. If a written job description has been prepared in advance of advertising or interviewing applicants for a job, this will be considered as evidence, although not conclusive evidence, of the essential functions of the job.” As such, dwarfism would be considered a disability.)

I recently had the pleasure of hitting a few Starbucks locations throughout NC, SC, GA and VA. It’s a pull up a chair and relax with some coffee kind of vibe. Not so in NYC. In New York, coffee’s gotta be served up PDQ or fuhgedaboutit. Doesn’t matter what time of day. So I can see where a manager at a busy Starbucks might first be thinking of mitigating the risk of injury prior to accommodating someone who can’t effectively reach all the necessary equipment to wait on customers.

It’s not hard to imagine the hustle and bustle behind the counter with waves of piping hot coffee (where’ve I heard that before?) cresting at the rim of every cup that’s being shuttled around. Throw in a step stool to maneuver about and it’s a burn injury waiting to happen at the very least; a slip and fall injury (or worse) at the worst.

The manager’s concerns—if that’s what they were—really aren’t part of the equation when it’s an ADA case. So for Sallard, Starbucks should’ve just run out to Lowe’s and gotten a blessed step stool. Instead, they’re coughing up $75,000 and providing diversity training on how to manage associates with disabilities.

Tags: ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, Dwarfism, EEOC, El Paso TX, Elsa Sallard, Starbucks Discrimination, Starbucks Dwarf
Posted in Discrimination, Emerging Issues | 86163 Comments »2011-08-23+21%3A22%3A31AbiK

Playboy Class Action: Pretty is Free, Ugly Pays, Men Pay More

February 3rd, 2011. By AbiK

In what might seem like a class action ready-made for Attorney Alfred Rava, a gentleman from California—David Long, Jr. —is suing Playboy. Yes, that Playboy.

Why? Well, back in 2009, he apparently attended Playboy’s 3rd Annual White Party at the Playboy Mansion. And, needless to say, it costs money to attend such VIP-guest-only gatherings. Hey, the keys to the kingdom ain’t free. But here’s the thing—Long says he was charged a fair amount more to gain access to the pleasure palace than women guests attending the same fête were charged. Translation: discrimination.

It gets better. The charges against Playboy state that the cost of entry to the big bash was in direct correlation to how good-looking guests were. “Gorgeous ladies” got in for free or a nominal fee; those unfortunate (ie, less attractive and apparently less apt to make good “arm candy”) gals who were not to be deemed “gorgeous” were only (only!) charged $350 per ticket. Long, however, being in the most unattractive group of all—men—was charged $625.

Yes, this begs the question, if you didn’t like the price, why pay?

I could go off on some feminist rant here (I won’t) but one could argue that as women—”gorgeous women”—are typically objectified in the world of Playboy et al, surely you can’t expect “objects” to cough up cash, right? Only real people have the means to pay. And hey, aren’t the guys attending really going for the women who’ll be there? I don’t think that any guys would cough up any amount for a ticket just to hobnob with Hef. The girls are the draw, plain and simple.

So if you back out any feminist feelings—or even just the argument that, hey, you wanted to attend and you paid so get over it—and you just look at this from a pure segmented marketing perspective, well, I suppose it does sound a bit discriminatory. The White Party as a saleable product was not differentiated in any way—no intentional value added—for the male consumer. Inherent value added? Yes—but intentional so as to make it a different product offering for the guys? No. So seemingly the same product should have the same price tag regardless of who’s consuming it.

So Long seeks damages and he’s looking for the court to prohibit Playboy from setting discriminatory prices ever again. At least he’s not looking for a floppy hat, like Alfred Rava was.

Tags: David Long Jr, Playboy, Playboy class action, Playboy Mansion, White Party
Posted in Class Action, Discrimination | 6691No Comments »2011-02-03+18%3A53%3A00AbiK