Friday, January 07, 2011

White TV reporter fired for using the ‘n-word’ accuses station of racial discrimination

About time this happened:
"The question of whether it is acceptable for an African-American person to use the 'n' word in a workplace but not a white person is to be decided by a federal jury. U.S. District Judge Barclay Surrick has ruled that former Fox29 reporter-anchor Tom Burlington's claims against the station of double standards and racial discrimination will go to trial on January 18.

Burlington, who is white, was dismissed after using the 'n' word during a staff meeting in June 2007. He made the comment while discussing a story about about the symbolic burial of the word by the Philadelphia Youth Council of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Burlington, who is now working as a real estate agent, was suspended within days and then fired after the incident was published in the Philadelphia Daily News.

He claims he 'was discriminated against because of his race', and states in his lawsuit that at least two African American employees at Fox29 had used the word in the workplace but had not been disciplined.

Judge Surrick, in denying Fox29's request to have the suit dismissed, said that federal courts had not determined whether a double standard, if true in this case, would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which deals with equal opportunity in employment.

Source

10 comments:

Stucco Holmes said...

Posting an article from MSNBC? JJR, How can you trust a leftist news source? I am deeply disappointed in you.

Stucco Holmes said...

Sorry, wrong article. See the next one down.

Anonymous said...

It's about f*cking time this issue went to trial. I'm really sick of the double-standard imposed on those not "within the group".

-sig

Anonymous said...

Best is to let private companies have their own policies no matter how discriminatory.

If the other people in the society wont agree to that kind of liberty, then push for public restrictions on who those companies can fire, but make it something those other people won't like for example:

Get the law to forbid firing a nonblack for saying nigger, but allow companies to fire blacks for saying it.

Maybe if some of those laws are successful, then the anti liberty types will settle in the middle , for letting each do what he wants with his own company.

Malcolm said...

I find it incredible that anyone, white or black, can lose his job for using a particular word, no matter how offensive.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:49 said...
"Best is to let private companies have their own policies no matter how discriminatory."

That would be the best policy, except that the laws "invented" to protect certain special interest groups trumps a private company's policy. But i'm happy to see someone finally challenge what is clearly a law that breeds even greater discrimination, not to mention, clearly violates the free speech of some, but not others.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't the constitution give me the right to offend anyone I choose as long as its not violent!!!

Anonymous said...

Doesn't the constitution give me the right to offend anyone I choose as long as its not violent!!!

Not within a private setting. The Constitution deals with government regulation of speech - not speech within the private sector.

Anonymous said...

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"

Just what part of that deals with where your speech is free and where it isn't? You do not lose your First Amendment right simply because you're in someone's office. No business can require you to relinquish your Constitutional rights.

Anonymous said...

Just what part of that deals with where your speech is free and where it isn't?

The part that says "Congress shall...."

The amendment doesn't prohibit people within a private setting making rules of conduct for their homes, place of business, etc.

It says that CONGRESS SHALL NOT make such laws.

You do not lose your First Amendment right simply because you're in someone's office.

I agree. Luckily they are not. They are not Congress.