Originally Posted by Elan Tedronai
Funny thing is I asked that question in my very first reply to you but since I used the word prosecute incorrectly all your cognitive reasoning skills fell right out of your butthoIe and you turned into a bumbling idiot. I can see why you couldn't hack it in the private sector and had to beseech the government for a job.
That isn't what you asked. Here is your post: "I have a hard time understanding how any company is ever successfully prosecuted for discrimination since intent is hard to prove
considering one's satisfactory performance does not entitle him to continued employment. Since I can fire someone for having stinky breath on a Tuesday, how could I ever be successfully prosecuted for discrimination if that's the reason I give?"
This can be summed up as: Since it is hard to prove intent in discrimination (which by the way, I never stated intent was necessary or required to prove discrimination), how can one discriminate against an employee if one gives another reason that isn't discrimination
1. Reread this rephrasing (it accurately depicts your original question). It is a f-cking stupid question because it answers itself, and introduces the following new issues from out of thin air (and you don't explain how you get them, or where you introduce them from, or how they correlate to the original information in my post describing how to prove discrimination).
2. You already recognize that proving discrimination is difficult if no explicit statement is made (implying you knew in your mind what sorts of circumstantial evidence you would need to prove discrimination), yet you ask how to prove it? Stupid much?
3. You jump from point A to point D without passing through points B and C. i already stated that the elements of proving discrimination are: a) being a member of a protected class b) suffering an adverse action and c) demonstrating a causal link between being a member of a protected class and the adverse action. Nowhere in there is the necessity to introduce the employer's official reason for the adverse action. So why do you feel the need to bring it up and ask how they will prove (c) in the face of the employer's official reason?
4. You mumble some bull**** about state laws and at-will employment, again pre-supposing that the employer's reason is important in proving discrimination, after it has been explained to you multiple times that is not relevant. There was even a list of three items which I provided to show how one proves discrimination, yet you keep bringing up the employer's reason for the adverse action when it isn't related to any of those three items.
Rofl, I "couldn't hack it in the private sector"? Says the man who works at a job that hires adults with downs syndrome to do the same work for pay equal to what a high school student is worth. How does it feel to be in the bottom of the barrel of the US economy?