• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Company Sued in Racial Discrimination Case Says They Don't Know if Claimant is Black

Thermal

August Member
Thermal
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
36,918
Location
Deep Inside
So Tracey Evans, a clearly black man, sues his employer, Founders Brewing, for a racially hostile workplace and using slurs at work. In court proceedings, the defendants claim to be unaware of Evans' heritage and won't answer to whether he is black or not:

‘I don't know Tracy's lineage, so I can't speculate on whether he's — if he's from Africa or not,’ Dominic Ryan, who is white, said to Evans’ attorney, Jack Schulz, when asked about the claimant’s race.
Click to expand...

Pics of Evans in the article. He is not exactly a margin call for being readily identified as a black man.

I know that litigators can split hairs about definitions ad infinitum, but does this really make any level of sense as a defense?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7605979/Founders-Brewing-manager-refuses-admit-employee-black-racial-discrimination-lawsuit.html
 
Interesting angle. Due to EOC laws, employers are not supposed to ask/know an employee's race. Which takes inter-employee discrimination out of the employer's hands. An anti-discrimination Catch 22. Hahahaha.

As whites in America become a minority, as we are in California,.... where do I get that popcorn emoji?
 
Thermal said:
So Tracey Evans, a clearly black man, sues his employer, Founders Brewing, for a racially hostile workplace and using slurs at work. In court proceedings, the defendants claim to be unaware of Evans' heritage and won't answer to whether he is black or not:



Pics of Evans in the article. He is not exactly a margin call for being readily identified as a black man.

I know that litigators can split hairs about definitions ad infinitum, but does this really make any level of sense as a defense?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7605979/Founders-Brewing-manager-refuses-admit-employee-black-racial-discrimination-lawsuit.html
Click to expand...
Okay, seriously? Yes, it does make sense. Not as a complete defense, but as a valid legal point: If the employer isn't legally allowed to inquire into the race of their employees, then as a legal question, their lawyer is absolutely going to assert ignorance on that point.

If the plaintiff's allegation hinges on the employer knowing his race as a legal fact, then he may need to look at a different argument to make in court. If the allegation doesn't hinge on that knowledge, then it's just an amusing legal sidebar.
 
theprestige said:
Okay, seriously? Yes, it does make sense. Not as a complete defense, but as a valid legal point: If the employer isn't legally allowed to inquire into the race of their employees, then as a legal question, their lawyer is absolutely going to assert ignorance on that point.

If the plaintiff's allegation hinges on the employer knowing his race as a legal fact, then he may need to look at a different argument to make in court. If the allegation doesn't hinge on that knowledge, then it's just an amusing legal sidebar.
Click to expand...

That he's black is information that is readily available. In this sense it's referring to the color of his skin, not his country of origin. The N word doesn't imply a ******* nation of origin. It's a derogatory slang word for someone who is black. The defendant's defense, per the article, is "he doesn't see color". He's basically claiming ignorance because whether he ******* does or doesn't his employees and, the culture he fosters, apparently does and uses it to cause an awkward working environment.

Nothing you said is relevant to this case.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
That he's black is information that is readily available. In this sense it's referring to the color of his skin, not his country of origin. The N word doesn't imply a ******* nation of origin. It's a derogatory slang word for someone who is black. The plaintiff's defense, per the article, is "he doesn't see color". He's basically claiming ignorance because whether he ******* does or doesn't his employees and, the culture he fosters, apparently does and uses it to cause an awkward working environment.

Nothing you said is relevant to this case.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Note that an employee does not need to be black in order to have the racist behavior be harassment. In fact, the legal standard is how the behavior is perceived by a reasonable observer, not by what the person doing it thinks it is.
 
This is yet another of the many, many unintended consequences of using cheap, Chinese-produced plastic bags at supermarkets. We're killing the fish, warming the Earth and we can't even find a paper shopping bag to test and see if our employees are black or not.
 
casebro said:
Interesting angle. Due to EOC laws, employers are not supposed to ask/know an employee's race. Which takes inter-employee discrimination out of the employer's hands. An anti-discrimination Catch 22. Hahahaha.
Click to expand...
That only applies during certain stages in certain employer's hiring processes. You need to review that law before you repeat false information.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
A child's argument.
Click to expand...

This. I doubt a jury will sympathize. In fact, when a person is obviously lying or feigning ignorance about something that anyone can see, it makes me less sympathetic. It makes me more likely to believe the plaintiff.
 
casebro said:
Interesting angle. Due to EOC laws, employers are not supposed to ask/know an employee's race. Which takes inter-employee discrimination out of the employer's hands.
Click to expand...


I represented a not-for-profit in a Civil Rights arbitration, the complainant alleging that she was discriminated against because she was black.

During the proceedings, the County Commissioner asked that we provide a breakdown of every employee by race. I certainly wasn't going to do that. I had the head of personnel submit a list, but included the language:


Please note that I have not enquired about the race of any employee. The above list represents merely my guess as to their heritage. I have no special training in determining racial makeup and I may well, and probably am, wrong. I do not affirm that anything in this document is in any way true or that it represents the beliefs of the corporation. I have not shared this list with anyone else in the company and have not even kept a copy for my own files.
Click to expand...


Why include that language? Because **** that guy for asking, that's why.
 
What I am wondering about this line of defense is:

1) is it being used as a strategy to force the plaintiffs to prove water is wet, thus running coffers dry and forcing endgame?

2) is it being used to assert that since the defendants don't see race, they can't be guilty of racial discrimination?

3) Is it being used to challenge that the law they are being charged with violating is too ambiguous to enforce?

4) is the defense attorney watching too much Miracle on 34th st?

My question to the Legal Eagles on the forum is, why wouldn't a reasonable person standard get all up in here? Pull a simple Potter Stewart and declare a reasonable person would know that Evans is a black man?
 
In a day and age where a person with an Adam's apple, deep voice, beard, and a penis can't be presumed to be a man, why would anyone assume a person is black for no reason other than they have dark skin?
 
Thermal said:
What I am wondering about this line of defense is:

1) is it being used as a strategy to force the plaintiffs to prove water is wet, thus running coffers dry and forcing endgame?

2) is it being used to assert that since the defendants don't see race, they can't be guilty of racial discrimination?

3) Is it being used to challenge that the law they are being charged with violating is too ambiguous to enforce?

4) is the defense attorney watching too much Miracle on 34th st?

My question to the Legal Eagles on the forum is, why wouldn't a reasonable person standard get all up in here? Pull a simple Potter Stewart and declare a reasonable person would know that Evans is a black man?
Click to expand...

As I noted, whether Evans is black or not is irrelevant to the situation. You can't go running around the office yelling ****** just because there are no black people present, just as you can't have an office full of sexist crap just because there are no women there. Any person (white, black, male or female) can file a complaint.
 
pgwenthold said:
As I noted, whether Evans is black or not is irrelevant to the situation. You can't go running around the office yelling ****** just because there are no black people present, just as you can't have an office full of sexist crap just because there are no women there. Any person (white, black, male or female) can file a complaint.
Click to expand...

What if I yell "fhtagn" in a crowded theatre on fire?
 
pgwenthold said:
As I noted, whether Evans is black or not is irrelevant to the situation. You can't go running around the office yelling ****** just because there are no black people present, just as you can't have an office full of sexist crap just because there are no women there. Any person (white, black, male or female) can file a complaint.
Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant if the meat of the complaint is that Evans was being discriminated against personally as a black man.

Also, if it was irrelevant, what is the legal strategy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom