Man wins gender discrimination lawsuit

[StLucieBengal]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28505/man-wins-gender-discrimination-lawsuit-after-job-joseph-curl

Thought this would be a change up to the usual stuff on the board lately. Is this a case of be careful what you wish for liberals? And where does this go moving forward, not just in Europe but here in the states as well?

Quote:Man Wins Gender Discrimination Lawsuit After Job Given To Woman Instead Of Him
Joseph CurlMarch 21, 2018

PhotoAlto/Ale Ventura/Getty Images
Me Too? Me Three!

A court in Austria has ruled in favor of a man who claimed he was discriminated against for his gender when the company he worked for gave a managerial position to a woman instead of him.

The case stretches all the way back to 2011, when the Austrian Minister of Transport, Innovation and Technology led by Social Democrat politician Doris Bures decided to consolidate two departments and had to pick a new manager, Newsweek reports.

Transport ministry official Peter Franzmay applied for the job.

Three candidates came forward and were all judged to be highly-qualified for the role. Ursula Zechner, who then headed the rail regulator Schienen-Control, was ultimately offered the job over the other two male applicants. Franzmayr, whose application was rated 0.25 percent higher than Zechner's, sued for gender discrimination.

The Federal Administrative Court ruled in his favor on Monday, the Austrian press reported, and instructed the State to pay him compensation worth €317,368 (nearly $390,000)—the difference between his current salary and the one he would have earned in the role plus damages and interest.

The court found a "discernible pattern, according to which [Zechner] was treated more favourably than the other candidates from the beginning," it said in the ruling, quoted in AFP.

Bures, though, said there was no discrimination. She said the appointment was “carried out according to the procedure prescribed by law,” but added that a long history of “mass underrepresentation of women" did play a role in her decision to appoint a woman.

"I hope the current decision doesn't call into the question the principle of encouraging the promotion of women," she said.

[*Nately120*]

I was under the impression that people who were the most vocal about discrimination towards men were of the right-wing variety. A quick search of "discrimination towards men" on Breitbart yielded more than 0 results, for a start.
http://www.breitbart.com/search/?s=discrimination+towards+men#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=discrimination%20towards%20men&gsc.page=1


At any rate, this isn't a new thing, as affirmative action vs. quota hiring has been a topic of dispute for a long time. Here is a 1973 article on it, actually.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1973/3/20/affirmative-action-vs-quotas-pbabffirmative-action/

[hollodero]

Yey Austria!

That being said... in general, I'm all for discrimination being called out, no matter which gender discriminates against which. (I guess there's a grammatical error in that sentence, but I'm so wild that I don't care.)

In this case, however, I'm torn, since that guy is just such an a*** in general. Yeah, shouldn't matter. Still annoys me.

Last thing, this really isn't about liberals, our current government is anything but, and so is that guy.

[*Nately120*]

(03-21-2018, 03:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: Last thing, this really isn't about liberals, our current government is anything but, and so is that guy.

Yeah, I don't see this being about liberals or because of liberals.  Honestly, the way it was framed I expected that the guy went in there and said "I consider myself a woman and demand you give me those bonus affirmative action points" or something. 

[StLucieBengal]

(03-21-2018, 03:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yey Austria!

That being said... in general, I'm all for discrimination being called out, no matter which gender discriminates against which. (I guess there's a grammatical error in that sentence, but I'm so wild that I don't care.)

In this case, however, I'm torn, since that guy is just such an a*** in general. Yeah, shouldn't matter. Still annoys me.

Last thing, this really isn't about liberals, our current government is anything but, and so is that guy.

(03-21-2018, 03:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, I don't see this being about liberals or because of liberals.  Honestly, the way it was framed I expected that the guy went in there and said "I consider myself a woman and demand you give me those bonus affirmative action points" or something. 

Liberals are always crying about discrimination. Hence the referral to liberals

[*Nately120*]

(03-21-2018, 03:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Liberals are always crying about discrimination.  Hence the referral to liberals

Again, the whole "think of the poor white males" mantra seems more like something a right-winger would say.  If you're telling me liberals are the ones leading the charge against beneficial hiring practices for women you can see why I'm skeptical.

Again, I see a situation here where a more qualified male was passed over for a job because the organization wanted to hire more women. If you're telling me that's a situation where conservatives would say "That's unfair, but who cares" and liberals would rush to the rescue in the interest of the man...well, I don't know what to tell you.

There is plenty of discrimination that conservatives care about, and I think discrimination against men is certainly one of them. Again, go to brietbart and look up articles on men getting the shaft in our ultra-PC world if you need proof. So if liberals are the ones who are against people being hired because of their gender rather than their qualifications, then score one for the liberals promoting actual fairness in this case.

[ballsofsteel]

(03-21-2018, 03:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: https://www.dailywire.com/news/28505/man-wins-gender-discrimination-lawsuit-after-job-joseph-curl

Thought this would be a change up to the usual stuff on the board lately.   Is this a case of be careful what you wish for liberals?   And where does this go moving forward, not just in Europe but here in the states as well?

Congratulations on your win.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-21-2018, 04:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Again, the whole "think of the poor white males" mantra seems more like something a right-winger would say.  If you're telling me liberals are the ones leading the charge against beneficial hiring practices for women you can see why I'm skeptical.

Again, I see a situation here where a more qualified male was passed over for a job because the organization wanted to hire more women. If you're telling me that's a situation where conservatives would say "That's unfair, but who cares" and liberals would rush to the rescue in the interest of the man...well, I don't know what to tell you.

There is plenty of discrimination that conservatives care about, and I think discrimination against men is certainly one of them. Again, go to brietbart and look up articles on men getting the shaft in our ultra-PC world if you need proof. So if liberals are the ones who are against people being hired because of their gender rather than their qualifications, then score one for the liberals promoting actual fairness in this case.

There should be no limits or constraints put on hiring. You either are good enough to get the job or you are not..... gender, skin color, disability, etc. have nothing to do with anything.

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2018, 05:36 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There should be no limits or constraints put on hiring.  You either are good enough  to get the job or you are not.....  gender, skin color, disability, etc. have nothing to do with anything.

Not sure what you are saying here.

Are you saying "skin color does not matter" or "skin color is not supposed to matter"?

[StLucieBengal]

(03-21-2018, 05:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what you are saying here.

Are you saying "skin color does not matter" or "skin color is not supposed to matter"?

It’s irrelevant in hiring. Employers should be able to hire exactly whomever they wish.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-21-2018, 05:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It’s irrelevant in hiring.   Employers should be able to hire exactly whomever they wish.

Employers should be able to hire the person most qualified and making the best fit for the position.  If you leave it to "whomever they wish", then sometimes favoritism will come into play.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-21-2018, 05:48 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Employers should be able to hire the person most qualified and making the best fit for the position.  If you leave it to "whomever they wish", then sometimes favoritism will come into play.

If they do not hire the best applicant then they only hurt their business. It just helps the businesses who hire only the best of The applicant pool.

[*Nately120*]

(03-21-2018, 05:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It’s irrelevant in hiring.   Employers should be able to hire exactly whomever they wish.

Fair enough, but I still don't see how telling a business they can't hire a less qualified woman in order to fit a quota is a particularly liberal move.

[Griever]

(03-21-2018, 05:36 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There should be no limits or constraints put on hiring.  You either are good enough  to get the job or you are not.....  gender, skin color, disability, etc. have nothing to do with anything.

we all know thats a lie, because you yourself have stated in the past that you wouldnt hire an openly gay, flamboyant man no matter how qualified he was

[BmorePat87]

Awesome, systematic discrimination should be rooted out no matter who it is targeted against.

If there was no pattern of discrimination from the start and they simply picked the person with a 0.25% lower score because they thought their personality better matched the job then that would have been fine.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-22-2018, 11:33 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Awesome, systematic discrimination should be rooted out no matter who it is targeted against.

If there was no pattern of discrimination from the start and they simply picked the person with a 0.25% lower score because they thought their personality better matched the job then that would have been fine.

Can you even do that with the government?  They don't seem to be high on subjectivity.  Probably for this reason. Although I have to confess to not being intimately knowledgeable of Austrian government. Their Emus are cool though.

[BmorePat87]

(03-22-2018, 11:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Can you even do that with the government?  They don't seem to be high on subjectivity.  Probably for this reason.  Although I have to confess to not being intimately knowledgeable of Austrian government.  Their Emus are cool though.

I'm not sure if their rating took personality into account, but I have to imagine that even the government has the flexibility to make a character decision based on the ability of the person to effectively do the job. 

[StLucieBengal]

(03-22-2018, 08:32 AM)Griever Wrote: we all know thats a lie, because you yourself have stated in the past that you wouldnt hire an openly gay, flamboyant man no matter how qualified he was

Correct. Employers should be able to hire as they wish. Which is exactly what I have always said.

Every employer should discriminate against anyone who they feel isn’t right for their business.

[hollodero]

(03-22-2018, 11:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Can you even do that with the government?  They don't seem to be high on subjectivity.  Probably for this reason.  Although I have to confess to not being intimately knowledgeable of Austrian government.  Their Emus are cool though.

How are you not intimately knowledgeable of Austrian government. I see that as my personal failing.

Knowing the actors a bit, this case is of course strange. Gender quotas are a favorite topic and talking point on the "left", and the person handing out the job is a) female and b) left, and knowing the actor I have no doubt favoritism was the main factor in that hiring.

The person suing for not getting the job is a) male and b) a staunch right winger. Chances are b) was more of a deciding factor than a), but a) is what you can obviously sue for these times, so he went there.

I don't know if that helps you though. And Emus are distinctly un-cool, they can't even fly and just do nothing all day long, don't help the GNP the tiniest bit.

[Griever]

(03-22-2018, 01:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Correct.  Employers should be able to hire as they wish.  Which is exactly what I have always said.  

Every employer should discriminate against anyone who they feel isn’t right for their business.

but you literally said something completely different

(03-21-2018, 05:36 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There should be no limits or constraints put on hiring.  You either are good enough  to get the job or you are not.....  gender, skin color, disability, etc. have nothing to do with anything.

sexuality doesnt suddenly make them not good enough to work a said job. That is just your own ignorance that makes you think that