There Have Been So Many Sexual Harassers Fired, They Should Start Their Own Cable Network, the She Network
It would provide all aspects of a network, from production, to comedy, to news, to drama, to opera, to public radio, to celebrity chefs, to theater, to entertainment news, to civil rights commentary, to ballet, to constitutional law commentary, by the smartest appellate court judge in the country, to a late night talk show hosting, the New Yorker reporter, the female Democratic Party candidate, who caused the take down of a Presidential aide, the left wing editor of a liberal paper.
The voters reject feminist allegations. They have voted for notorious gropers, even if they did not bother to deny the allegations. That is because these allegations, the voters know, are meaningless. If you have any honor, as a woman, you will slap the offensive pig, and leave. Such immediate response is far more effective than a lot of human resources procedure, investigations, reports, and legal advice. These are all ridiculous and ineffective at defending the honor of females. If the guy retaliates at work, send your brother to just beat his ass with a bat, then with the lid of a garbage can. The instructional video is here.
I predict Judge Roy Moore will win his election in Alabama, to the Senate, in 3 weeks. Just the image of employment lawyer, Gloria Alred, on TV is worth 100,000 votes for him. Everyone human detests her and her clients.
If the voters do not care, why do employers rush to fire the person, even before verifying the allegations, even if the allegations are from years ago?
The answer is simple. They could lose the entire business to predatory employment lawyers and appellate court judges. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. That is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional no matter what the dozens of Supreme Court decisions may falsely claim. Their primary purpose is to generate lawyer employment. All discrimination laws are really designed to enrich and empower lawyers. They have always had hideous effects on the classes they were meant to help. All racial disparities in social pathologies soared. Prior to the 1960's, it is hard to believe. Blacks had slightly higher rates of social pathologies, in unemployment, the rate of bastardy, poverty, crime victimization. Thanks, to this law, the rates are now an order of magnitude higher, and no longer just slightly higher.
The law against discrimination against the handicapped devastated their employability. This male witch hunt will make it harder to hire a female. Hire a female, hire a lawsuit. Females were hired because of technology, booming economies, labor shortages, their education and skills, and, of course, their competitive, lower wages.
These anti-discrimination laws all violate the Right to Free Association inherent in the Freedom of Assembly Clause of the First Amendment.
In the case of sexual harassment claims, do people know the harasser is never named in the complaint, only the employer? This is true even if the employer was never informed of the harassment. That practice shows the real nature of these claims, to plunder the funds of productive entities, mostly run by productive males.
Such litigation may also be catastrophic to the successful plaintiff. Say, you win $1 million in a verdict or settlement for sexual harassment. The typical expenses were $400,000. That leaves $600,000. The lawyer may take a third in a contingency fee. That leaves $400,000. The federal and state tax will be on the full $1 million, because there was no physical injury, just discrimination. Your legal costs are not deductible from the taxable settlement. You may have to pay taxes close to $500,000. You may have to borrow $100, 000, to pay federal and state taxes. The IRS legal analysis and guidance is here.
Naturally, you will never work again. You would not be hired to swab the floor at a McDonalds, after suing an employer.
Failing to discuss the tax and employability implications of a discrimination verdict or settlement is lawyer malpractice, in my opinion. It may even rise to the level of fraud, since you go to a lot of trouble, ruin your future, and get nothing. The lawyer gets a lot of your money, making the work fraudulent if not openly and loudly disclosed, and put into writing. You could then sue your employment lawyer by hiring a lawyer malpractice lawyer. He should tell you the tax implications of suing your employment lawyer for malpractice, or you should sue him. Lawyer malpractice claims, you should be warned, are nearly impossible to win. You should not sue unless certain of getting $5 million or more in settlement. Even then, the feminist plaintiff will be shocked at what is actually collected by her for damages.
This is an example of a ridiculous sex discrimination suit. This was over tenure. It could have easily been over the use of the non-preferred, but real world pronoun to address it. The federal court forced this transgender person down the throats of a decent university, using men with guns to impose its tyranny. People should be aware that Title VII has been stretched to justify $250,000 fines for using the non-preferred but real world pronoun of a transgender. Starting in 2018, in California, you may go to prison for a year for each infraction of calling the transgender by the non-preferred pronoun. I like the gender neutral pronoun, it.
Now, hire a gay, a female, a black, a handicapped, hire a lawsuit. They were doing well, before anti-discrimination laws, but suffered after they were enacted. Employment lawyers are doing much better.
The law against discrimination against the handicapped devastated their employability. This male witch hunt will make it harder to hire a female. Hire a female, hire a lawsuit. Females were hired because of technology, booming economies, labor shortages, their education and skills, and, of course, their competitive, lower wages.
These anti-discrimination laws all violate the Right to Free Association inherent in the Freedom of Assembly Clause of the First Amendment.
In the case of sexual harassment claims, do people know the harasser is never named in the complaint, only the employer? This is true even if the employer was never informed of the harassment. That practice shows the real nature of these claims, to plunder the funds of productive entities, mostly run by productive males.
Such litigation may also be catastrophic to the successful plaintiff. Say, you win $1 million in a verdict or settlement for sexual harassment. The typical expenses were $400,000. That leaves $600,000. The lawyer may take a third in a contingency fee. That leaves $400,000. The federal and state tax will be on the full $1 million, because there was no physical injury, just discrimination. Your legal costs are not deductible from the taxable settlement. You may have to pay taxes close to $500,000. You may have to borrow $100, 000, to pay federal and state taxes. The IRS legal analysis and guidance is here.
Naturally, you will never work again. You would not be hired to swab the floor at a McDonalds, after suing an employer.
Failing to discuss the tax and employability implications of a discrimination verdict or settlement is lawyer malpractice, in my opinion. It may even rise to the level of fraud, since you go to a lot of trouble, ruin your future, and get nothing. The lawyer gets a lot of your money, making the work fraudulent if not openly and loudly disclosed, and put into writing. You could then sue your employment lawyer by hiring a lawyer malpractice lawyer. He should tell you the tax implications of suing your employment lawyer for malpractice, or you should sue him. Lawyer malpractice claims, you should be warned, are nearly impossible to win. You should not sue unless certain of getting $5 million or more in settlement. Even then, the feminist plaintiff will be shocked at what is actually collected by her for damages.
This is an example of a ridiculous sex discrimination suit. This was over tenure. It could have easily been over the use of the non-preferred, but real world pronoun to address it. The federal court forced this transgender person down the throats of a decent university, using men with guns to impose its tyranny. People should be aware that Title VII has been stretched to justify $250,000 fines for using the non-preferred but real world pronoun of a transgender. Starting in 2018, in California, you may go to prison for a year for each infraction of calling the transgender by the non-preferred pronoun. I like the gender neutral pronoun, it.
Now, hire a gay, a female, a black, a handicapped, hire a lawsuit. They were doing well, before anti-discrimination laws, but suffered after they were enacted. Employment lawyers are doing much better.
No comments:
Post a Comment