home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!bsu-cs!bsu-ucs.uucp!d000dlphi
- From: d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman)
- Newsgroups: soc.motss
- Subject: Re: Private antidiscrimination policies in CO (was Re: Attention...)
- Message-ID: <1992Dec31.013013.13337@bsu-ucs>
- Date: 31 Dec 92 06:30:13 GMT
- References: <1ht79qINN6dp@hp-col.col.hp.com> <C03G46.4B4@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> <1992Dec31.002814.1979@netcom.com> <1992Dec31.032000.10182@spdcc.com>
- Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <1992Dec31.032000.10182@spdcc.com>, rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
- > solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
- >>mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:>
- >>I don't see how this follows from CO2. If FooWare has an
- >>anti-discrimination policy and they violate it, that's a breach
- >>of contract, and I don't see how CO2 would prevent you from suing
- >>successfully. Granted, CO2 prevents the law from *mandating*
- >>non-0discrimination; but if a company sets up such a policy
- >>voluntarily, they would be bound by it the same way they'd be
- >>bound by any other agreements.
- >
- > CO2 doesn't distinguish what's beiung argued, it only
- > states that discrimination on the basis of orientation can't be used.
- > Therefore, in CO's eyes no breach of contract exists, because
- > I'm' not allowed to claim the breach took place.
- >
-
- That's true. The wording of the amendment is that in CO, no suit can be brought
- claiming sexual orientation as a discrimination target.
-
- In a civil case of breech of contract, you'd have to prove that NO OTHER
- reasons were used in the firing. The company could get out of it simply by
- stating that you weren't living up to job expectations.
-
- Even though you know it was for sexual orientation.
-
- Bites, huh?
- David
-