| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Lesbian ex-worker sues Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 13:38 EST/18:38 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
A former employee of Microsoft has sued the world's largest software maker for sexual harassment, saying that a manager discriminated against her after she attended a national gay and lesbian conference. Barbara Campbell, who worked at Microsoft's Washington, DC, office in sales, said she was open about her sexual orientation at Microsoft and even attended the National Conference of Gay and Lesbian Rights conference at the behest of the company. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:53:45 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1295 (216.85.97.98) at 11/30/2004 2:29:20 PM |
| God bless America! |
| #2 By 6859 (206.156.242.39) at 11/30/2004 4:23:09 PM |
|
No offense to Barbara, but homosexuals aren't a protected minority. It is, sadly enough, legal to discriminate against them. There's no federal law prohibiting such; and many states don't have such coverage either.
Plus she's going against MS. She'll lose. |
| #3 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/30/2004 4:35:28 PM |
|
The Fourteenth Amendment is not predicated on any "protected minority" status. All citizens are entitled to equal protection. If Microsoft does not have well documented evidence of valid reasons for terminating her, Washington State's and the Federal Gov't's equal protection clause certainly does protect her.
Also note, that a King County judge has overruled the state's defense of marriage act citing the state and federal Constitution's equal protection clause. |
| #4 By 27791 (168.180.96.8) at 11/30/2004 5:10:46 PM |
|
According to the article, she was not terminated. She quit ~18 months ago.
Personally, I doubt her charges. While Microsoft may be seen to the outside as "The Evil Empire," the way they treat their employees is nothing if not equitable. Full thoughts: http://romsteady.blogspot.com/2004/11/microsoft-discriminates-against-gays-i.html |
| #5 By 3465 (68.50.165.16) at 11/30/2004 10:30:08 PM |
| I wonder if she's a hot lesbo? Or does she look like Rosie? |
| #6 By 1295 (70.177.113.245) at 12/1/2004 12:20:43 AM |
|
Sodajerk - While I agree that a equal protection argument could be made when discussing firing based off of Sexual Preference. Could you also make that case for chronic laziness?
Finally the idea that the Federal or State Government can legislate how, when and why a person can be fired from a job blatently violates Article I Section 10 of the Federal Constitution: "Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." Notice "or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." A job is a Contract. I enter into a contract with my workers to do certain things (like performing services under my company's name or working on resources of mine to create a product). I am obligated to pay the worker and the worker is obligated to do the certain things I require. Unless stipulated upon entering in this contract either party can change the requirements of the relationship or can terminate the relationship. No person is forced into the contract. Expecting our Government to actually follow the rules set forth in our Consitutions is a little nieve. The people have grown so acustom to just expecting our Government to "do the right thing". The people just expect those in Government to be immune to the biases and weaknesses that the rest of us are plagued with. We are happy with a just Dictator. |
| #7 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 12/1/2004 12:22:56 AM |
| #5 Ditto! Ditto! Ditto! and Amen! |
| #8 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 12/1/2004 1:05:28 AM |
|
"Ms. Treacy's attitude, conduct and responses to Ms. Campbell changed dramatically, and for the worse," the complaint read." - She was just so mean to me! I just couldn't take it . . . boo hoo
Yipes! A boss that is mean. Now that's a new one!@$O#!@ Hey, who wants to hire this person? No matter, if she has her way she won't have to work for a long time. Bill's deep pockets being plumbed again! |
| #9 By 6859 (12.219.23.70) at 12/1/2004 8:36:02 AM |
|
Also, let us not forget the idea of the "right to work" state. Basically, the employer can fire you for any reason that isn't discriminatory at its base (like for being some form of protected group, such as disabled.) Iowa is one such state, Washington might be one too (I don't know), if that is the case even if she hadn't quit and was actually fired her defense of "I'm gay" wouldn't cut it either.
Plus the 14th Amendment has been so eviscerated by our federal government that it is effectively no longer on the books. Would it be nice to have a government that obeys the laws? Yup. That's why I vote the way I do and why I write many letters to my Congressmen--to no avail I might add. But I digress. |
| #10 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 12/1/2004 1:38:55 PM |
|
"Could you also make that case for chronic laziness?"
What? "Notice "or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." A job is a Contract." And? The Clause is about States not interfering with Federal duties. Where is the state in this issue? No where. Who cares about the last clause referring to contracts, you forgot to notice the "No State shall..." bit. "Expecting our Government to actually follow the rules set forth in our Consitutions is a little nieve." No, it's not. But... I can't figure out how any of what you've said is halfway relevent at all. Who's talking about laziness? Who's talking about states interfering with federal law? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 at 13:40. |
| #11 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 12/1/2004 1:50:23 PM |
| Soda, she QUIT...she wasn't terminated by MS. |
| #12 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 12/1/2004 6:23:24 PM |
|
Brian, I GET it.
I only posted initially to point out that equal protection does not specify "protected minorities." I didn't care about the story that much. I now know she quit. Her quitting or being fired has no impact on whether or not she is entitled to equal protection under the law. What's your point? And... Humpty's comments still make no sense whatsoever. |
| #13 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 12/1/2004 7:01:06 PM |
| Soda, not sure about humpty's comments either. |
| #14 By 1295 (70.177.113.245) at 12/1/2004 10:20:00 PM |
|
God bless ya Soda. Yes it does involve restricting a State from ever assuming a power allowing it to, among other things, interfere in private contracts. What you fail to recognize is the Federal Government has no power to interfere in Private Contracts either.
So in other words it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH "States not interfering with Federal duties." Interfereing with Private Contracts is not a "Federal Duty" or power. Basically it restricts the powers that States can be afforded by their people. You are more than welcome to comb the Constitution and find where the Federal Government was given the power to interfere in Private Contracts... but I won't hold my breathe. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html And while you're in there could you take a gander at the 10th Amendment. Also, if you are for personal freedom, what about the Freedom of the Employer to choose who does and does not aquire his/her property? Not allowing an Employer to fire someone for any reason allowed by his contractual obligation with the employee is regulating how and when a person is able to use/spend/distribute/trade his/her property. The same is true for the employee not being forced to provide the labor or services the Employer wants. One is a violation of the citizens property and the other is a violation of a citizens liberty. I'm by no means saying firing someone for one of those reason's is right... I'm saying that it shouldn't and can't be illegal. And if you ask me... if it gets around that a company or employer is firing people for such deplorable reasons... that company and or employer will either have less qualified laborers or less customers or both. God bless Capitalism. This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 at 22:22. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:53:45 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
