WHY I WOULD NEVER OWN A COMPANY AGAIN!!

WHY I WOULD NEVER OWN A COMPANY AGAIN!! Two stories that reared their ugly heads in the news recently affirmed why I would never own a company again. I understand the importance of laws to protect the rights of people who REALLY need protecting, but frivolous litigious employees and potential employees are taking advantage of the law. While one of the cases occurred in Spain, it is not uncommon to hear the same type of scenario in America. An employee in Gerona, Spain called his boss “a son of a bitch” and was fired. The employee sued and a court in Barcelona ruled that insulting your boss is not grounds for dismissal.

The ruling — first reported this week by Spanish human resources Web site Carta de Personal — said the worker should either be reinstated in his job or receive 6,483 euros ($9,472) in compensation. It is not known which option the employer picked. I am sure the employer did not choose to hire them back. How can you have an employee sitting around smugly knowing they can curse at you and get away with it?

"Without a doubt, both expressions are insulting," Judge Sara Maria Pose Vidal said in the ruling, She also wrote that the "son of a bitch" remark should be viewed in linguistic context. "The social degradation of language has caused the expressions used by the plaintiff to become commonly used in certain settings, especially in arguments," Pose Vidal wrote, calling his dismissal a disproportionate punishment.

So a person works hard for years, saves money and starts their own company. They expect their employees to treat them with dignity and respect. The employee calls the boss “a son of a bitch” and the court rewards them with money. Even though this was a ruling from a Spanish court, I wouldn’t be surprised if an American court would rule the same way. An employee defendant would claim they were emotionally distraught by the firing and should be protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act! A Muslim teenager applied for a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Kids store in Woodlands Hill, Oklahoma. She was wearing a hijab and was told that her dress was inconsistent with the store’s “look policy.” The 17 year old girl took her complaint to U.S. District Court last week, where a lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In this case, the EEOC thinks it was possible for Abercrombie to accommodate the potential employee’s religious practices and is seeking back pay and a permanent injunction against A& F from engaging in (what the EEOC says is) discriminatory employment practices. Also being pursued, are monetary and non-monetary losses because of "emotional pain, suffering, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and inconvenience." The suit also indicates that the plaintiff is looking for punitive damages. At the web site http://www.islam101.com/, there is a whole page devoted to the wearing of hijab and the legal precedents to protect the wearing of this type of clothing. It does not matter that an employer might set a dress code; what matters is what an employee wants. "Many cases have demonstrated an employee's legal right to reasonable accommodation in matters of faith. Examples: 1) The failure of other Muslim employees to wear headscarves is legally irrelevant. The employee need only show sincerely-held religious beliefs. (E.E.O.C. v. Reads, Inc., 1991) 2) There are no health or safety concerns at issue. (Cf.E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 82-1, 1982, also E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 81-20, 1981) 3) Companies cannot give effect to private biases. In other words, just because an employer believes customers will be prejudiced against a woman in a scarf, that does not mean the employee can be fired. (Palmer v. Sidoti, 1984, also Cf. Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 1971) 4) An employer must demonstrate "undue hardship" caused by the wearing of religious attire. (TWA v. Hardison, 1977) Hardships recognized by the courts include cost to the employer or effect on co-workers. 5) Dress codes can have disproportionate impact on certain faiths. (E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 71-2620, 1971, also E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 71-779, 1970)" If I own a company, where are my rights as an employer? Hungarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz said "Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.” So conclusively “all the world is mad save for me and thee, and sometimes I wonder about thee.” (Ogden Nash)