In case you didn’t know, most people think ANYONE with any size on them at all is on steroids. [/quote]
This is why my mind keeps coming back to that isn’t the reason. I mean you have to figure co-workers, and even some management have been busting balls about it for years. They are certainly talking behind his back, and most time you find that shit out. I don’t know… This is probably going suck whatever the outcome.
But tell you what, if he was a heffer this would be national news and people would be in outrage.
In case you didn’t know, most people think ANYONE with any size on them at all is on steroids.
This is why my mind keeps coming back to that isn’t the reason. I mean you have to figure co-workers, and even some management have been busting balls about it for years. They are certainly talking behind his back, and most time you find that shit out. I don’t know… This is probably going suck whatever the outcome.
But tell you what, if he was a heffer this would be national news and people would be in outrage.
[/quote]
Well, if it is because of his size, then it is clear discrimination that would be no different than firing someone because they were a minority simply because you heard minorities smoke crack. He always spoke well of his job in every interview in MD so I am doubting that there was some serious problem brewing for years due to his job performance.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Unless in a said contract…employers USUALLY have the right to fire you for whatever the hell they want to…so…he better be Natty…if not CNN had to fire em. I don’t agree with it…but thats the buisness. The dudes all up in the media…Everyones prolly saying what we’re wondering…DUDES ON GEAR… He should get a drug test…if he passes then CNN owes him damages and a job if he fails…well that violates the illegal drug use policy…cause Steroids are STILL ILLEGAL DRUGS. No One but US are going to argue that his job should still be kept whilst knowingly using Illegal DRUGS.[/quote]
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. The whole point of “at will” employment is that the employer can fire you for whatever reason they want. Accordingly, it doesn’t matter if he was juicing or not. Unless he is in a protected class (which federally includes race, sex, national origin, age…not sure if DC has additional protected classes, but I doubt they include muscularity), he has no discrimination claim.
However, a huge company like CNN may have an employee handbook which establishes a requirement of just cause in their terminations, in which case he may actually have a case. Time will tell.
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
FrozenNinja wrote:
Unless in a said contract…employers USUALLY have the right to fire you for whatever the hell they want to…so…he better be Natty…if not CNN had to fire em. I don’t agree with it…but thats the buisness. The dudes all up in the media…Everyones prolly saying what we’re wondering…DUDES ON GEAR… He should get a drug test…if he passes then CNN owes him damages and a job if he fails…well that violates the illegal drug use policy…cause Steroids are STILL ILLEGAL DRUGS. No One but US are going to argue that his job should still be kept whilst knowingly using Illegal DRUGS.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. The whole point of “at will” employment is that the employer can fire you for whatever reason they want. Accordingly, it doesn’t matter if he was juicing or not. Unless he is in a protected class (which federally includes race, sex, national origin, age…not sure if DC has additional protected classes, but I doubt they include muscularity), he has no discrimination claim.
However, a huge company like CNN may have an employee handbook which establishes a requirement of just cause in their terminations, in which case he may actually have a case. Time will tell.[/quote]
Some employers will have a contract clause that will state a said reason must and will be given for termination…they are few and far between but they do exsist.
[quote]ALKoHoLiK wrote:
Is DC a shall work state? I can’t find much on the subject.
I know here in Georgia because it is a shall work state, people can get fired just because[/quote]
The term is “right to work”. The term is really code for the proposition that no one should be denied a job because they won’t join a union (or pay union dues). Generally, right-to-work states are not union friendly precisely because you can be hired for fired for any legal reason. Which laws apply to a given situation is not an easy question to answer in litigation. Georgia is a right-to-work state, but the District of Columbia (governed directly by Congress) is not.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
that would be no different than firing someone because they were a minority simply because you heard minorities smoke crack. [/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’ve said it before that natural HUGE weight lifters in the military often get singled out and tested.[/quote]
You don’t even have to be big, you just have to show the type of progress that comes with any sort of dedication in the gym. I was never big while I was in, but I was bigger than most of my peers within months of starting to lift weights, and sure enough I’d randomly get drug tested over and over…randomly.
While being fired for being big or even it if does turn out to be related to gear I would find unfortunate.
Having said that, I don’t like laws telling companies who they must hire and who they can’t fire. Also, who would want to work somewhere they’ve been fired from because the outfit was coerced at the point of lawsuit? Great working environment coming there.
CNN doesn’t want their name associated with high level bodybuilding. It’s their choice, not saying I agree but I understand. That level of competition is associated with drug use and they don’t want to take any chances.
[quote]parsley wrote:
chimera182 wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
How can he fight it, when in the US it is illegal to use PEDs and with the best will in the world, you don’t get to Brandens level of development without them.
Now if he were here in the UK, where PED use is a personal choice, I could understand the descision to fight.
BBB
Sorry if this is stupid, I looked it up and couldn’t find anything, but what does PED stand for?
Performance Enhancing Drugs im guessing.[/quote]
oh no it does’nt it stands for
Pulsating Erect Dicks!
I definitely follow your logic, but legally, it is not the same. Discriminating against anyone based upon ethnic or ancestral origin is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. Discriminating against someone for being big is not protected by any statute, nor is such a person a member of any “suspect” classification that would invoke strict scrutiny (not that such classification would matter anyways when concerning a private employer). In other words, he’s probably fucked.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Professor X wrote:
In case you didn’t know, most people think ANYONE with any size on them at all is on steroids.
This is why my mind keeps coming back to that isn’t the reason. I mean you have to figure co-workers, and even some management have been busting balls about it for years. They are certainly talking behind his back, and most time you find that shit out. I don’t know… This is probably going suck whatever the outcome.
But tell you what, if he was a heffer this would be national news and people would be in outrage.
Well, if it is because of his size, then it is clear discrimination that would be no different than firing someone because they were a minority simply because you heard minorities smoke crack. He always spoke well of his job in every interview in MD so I am doubting that there was some serious problem brewing for years due to his job performance.[/quote]
[quote]cromwell2007 wrote:
parsley wrote:
chimera182 wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
How can he fight it, when in the US it is illegal to use PEDs and with the best will in the world, you don’t get to Brandens level of development without them.
Now if he were here in the UK, where PED use is a personal choice, I could understand the descision to fight.
BBB
Sorry if this is stupid, I looked it up and couldn’t find anything, but what does PED stand for?
Performance Enhancing Drugs im guessing.
oh no it does’nt it stands for
Pulsating Erect Dicks!
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
There was A story on the news here in Australia not long ago about heavy post workers.
Becuase they deliver the mail on small motorbikes they implamented a weight limit (i think it was 90kg)I think there argument was that they were too slow or something.
They gave them diet advice or something and offered them desk jobs if they couldnt loose weight.
Although its not specifically against muscular people, when I heard it I thought it would suck if you were fit and muscular and your employer was telling you to loose weight. 90kg though would even screw over tall people of normal proportions.
I’ll try and find an article.
"AUSTRALIA Post has increased the maximum weight for posties by 15kg as it battles to attract and retain staff.
Unions are baffled by the changes, saying the new 105kg limit for posties contradicts Australia Post’s defiant stance two years ago that limited posties to 90kg.
Australia Post said in 2006 that its 110cc motorcycles had a “safe working limit” of 130kg, about 40kg for letters and packages and the remaining 90kg for posties.
But unions say Australia Post relaxed the weight restrictions because it was struggling to attract and retain posties being offered a basic wage of $36,000 a year.
Application forms for posties now ask: “Do you currently weigh less than 105kg (fully clothed)?” and applicants are then asked to fill in their “current weight (fully clothed)”.
The 90kg weight limit caused major headaches for Australia Post’s recruitment officers,
according to NSW Communications Electrical Plumbing Union branch organiser Michael Etue.
“How many people weigh 90kg? Not many,” Mr Etue said"
