|
euphronius posted:I never said those things. You posted a statement that was wrong and I corrected you. Whatever you want to think. I stand correct.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
I love this thread so much. IANAL, nor do I have legal problems, but I love to watch people rage or continue their poor course of action in face of reasonable responses. Hard of hearing guy, you're not taking the advice you're being given here. 1. It might be a job you can't do, and just didn't say so in the ad. If its a phone job, then what? 2. It isn't simple to prove discrimination. What you've told the govt. agencies you've contacted may be enough for them to investigate. However there are always two sides to any story, so once they've heard the companies, you may no longer have a compelling case. Bottom line, it is possible the company has a reason that doesn't violate the ADA. jassi007 fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Sep 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Also, if they make the claim that being able to use a telephone is an essential function of the job, then it's pretty reasonable for them to not interview a candidate that admits he can't do that essential function.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Kaitian posted:Even the Human Rights Commission investigator & Attorney General's office of Idaho AGREES that they discriminated against me. Ehhh... Not really. You think they agree, but that doesn't mean they actually do. Just like you think the employer discriminated, but that doesn't mean they actually did. All the employer has to say is "position became filled" or "never saw that email", and that's a wrap. Honestly, I think they'd have to be dumb enough to affirmatively tell you no interview due to your disability to fall afoul of the law in this particular circumstance. They have too many outs to weasel out of it in your case. (I'm not saying they did or didn't discriminate, but they have plenty of available excuses to legally discriminate)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Also, if they make the claim that being able to use a telephone is an essential function of the job, then it's pretty reasonable for them to not interview a candidate that admits he can't do that essential function. Yeah, if the employer's even a little organized, the official job description has a line to the effect of "Able to communicate efficiently with co-workers and clients orally, in writing or over the phone" or something like that. IANAL, but wouldn't you need to prove that they would have hired you if it hadn't been for the disability before you can claim monetary damages? Then all they would have to say is "The candidate did not appear to be a good personality fit for the organization". Serious question, I'm curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Also, if they make the claim that being able to use a telephone is an essential function of the job, then it's pretty reasonable for them to not interview a candidate that admits he can't do that essential function. They didn't. In fact, they never mentioned at all it was an OTP job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Ehhh... Not really. You think they agree, but that doesn't mean they actually do. Just like you think the employer discriminated, but that doesn't mean they actually did. However, the last email was where I notified them that I was hearing-impaired and they were really prompt about getting back to me. 4 of the 5 emails were within the same day almost within the same hour.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
People step away from their desks, sometimes even for a few days. Sometimes there are other delays, like HR having to try and schedule and in-person interview. The answer to that might very well have been "I don't have time for the next three weeks, we need the guy in a week, gently caress it. Take another guy." It's a buyer's market, the slightest inconvenience might be enough to get you passed over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
In an employment discrimination claim, the claimant/plaintiff must first make a prima facie claim of discrimination. Then the employer gets to respond and say the the negative employment action was based on legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. If the employer does this, it is the burden of the claimant/plaintiff to prove the employer's reason was merely pretext, which is usually exceedingly difficult.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:People step away from their desks, sometimes even for a few days. Sometimes there are other delays, like HR having to try and schedule and in-person interview. However they wanted to interview me the next day at a certain time which I could also have been readily available then as well at any location of theirs either at their warehouse or office locations. The guy was their HR go-to-person and when I found out about more details later on, they already had a file on me applying for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
The worst part about this entire issue is that you aren't going to work for them now. Even if they discriminated, and get smacked by the local Idaho ADA-style authorities, you won't enjoy working at a place that you filed legal action against. And the chances are that you would get let go within a year anyway, for some reason or other. The best you can hope for, realistically speaking, is some amount of damages - but I wouldn't expect to get very much, if you get anything at all. In other words, keep up the good fight because it's important to do so, but don't expect any personal reward from it. In the meantime, keep looking for other work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
I looked it up because I was interested and here are Idaho's remedies for employment discriminationquote:(3) In a civil action filed by the commission or filed directly by the person alleging unlawful discrimination, if the court finds that unlawful discrimination has occurred, its judgment shall specify an appropriate remedy or remedies therefor. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to: http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title67/T67CH59SECT67-5908.htm euphronius fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Sep 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Kaitian posted:However they wanted to interview me the next day at a certain time which I could also have been readily available then as well at any location of theirs either at their warehouse or office locations. The guy was their HR go-to-person and when I found out about more details later on, they already had a file on me applying for it. So? The company has no obligation to reply to you quickly at all, especially when you're putting a burden on them to do things differently than they had planned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Damages in this kind of case also tends to be 'salary that would have been earned in the period it would reasonably take you to find another job'/'your chance of actually getting the job'. ie. not a year's salary, you might get a happy meal out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
I like how they statutorily limit punitive damages to $1,000, hahaha. "Go away, Plaintiffs lawyers!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
In addition to the afore-mentioned problems (which you seem determined to ignore), your damages figures are way out of whack. No reasonable jury, judge, or ALJ would give you a year's worth of wages in damages because you didn't get a job interview. If you're lucky you'll get a few weeks of pay or something similar. All the proximate cause issues that are going to undermine their actual liability under the statute will also undermine your damages. EDIT: efb, clearly I need to type quicker/stop listening to lectures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
And if they somehow, through black magic and shrewd dealings, wind up with an order to employ you, I'm pretty sure you're getting paid minimum wage until such time as you sneeze without permission and are fired.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Kaitian posted:However, the last email was where I notified them that I was hearing-impaired and they were really prompt about getting back to me. 4 of the 5 emails were within the same day almost within the same hour. "We had a large response to our Craigslist job posting [insert cute anecdote about Obama's economy]. Due to the volume of applicants and our limited resources, we were unfortunately unable to inform many candidates, including Mr. Kaitian, that the position had been filled/eliminated/delayed." Them responding really quickly beforehand doesn't refute this. There's no meat on the bone. Here's a way to think of it: pretend that employer is asking this thread for advice because they just discriminated against you. We'd say "well, did you tell them why they were cut, or write anything down, or document any reasoning whatsoever?". If they said no, we'd say "welp, for practical purposes you're probably off the hook, you biased buttpig".
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
entris posted:The worst part about this entire issue is that you aren't going to work for them now. Even if they discriminated, and get smacked by the local Idaho ADA-style authorities, you won't enjoy working at a place that you filed legal action against. And the chances are that you would get let go within a year anyway, for some reason or other. I already found other employment anyways so I'm not going to be working for them. The HRC recommends that I find other employment while the whole thing went through. Meanwhile, the HRC works in conjunction with the EEOC so both federal and state law will be interchangable anyways I believe. I'm not really losing out either ways so I don't give a flying gently caress. I only filed the complaint because it was obvious to me that they discriminated and I gave them time to respond back to me but that never came. It was only AFTER when they got the complaint notification, they finally emailed me back today going "oh we filled the position, would you like to be notified for future job openings in the future?" Ya no gently caress you. Especially the point of the IHRC is to prevent future discrimination as well so the company would be on record.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
So it sounds like your discrimination claim will be.... hearing impaired. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
In court, what is the admissibility of a self-reported move-in checklist that was not signed by the landlord, not even signed/initialed by the tenant *boggle*, and electronically returned via timestamped fax 45 days after the lease began? This checklist has a legalese timeframe (7 days) before Tenant "accept[s] full responsibility".
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
What kind of court?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 14:05
|
|
|
Sounds totally admissible. All those things sound like they're going to credibility, not admissibility. What you have is a written document purporting to describe the condition of the premises communicated from the tenant to the landlord. And the tenant can authenticate it. Why wouldn't it be admissible?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Why wouldn't it be admissible? I think the content of the document would be admissible as a present sense impression or to refresh recollection, but I don't think the document itself would be admissible unless offered by the opposing party. Unless you're in small claims court, then it's whatever the judge allows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
I heard someone say they had a misdemeanor on their record for ADICS. Anyone know what that stands for? Google isn't helpful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Would be helpful to know what state. Looks like alcoholic beverage with intent to consume by person under the age of 21.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Would be helpful to know what state. Oregon. Someone at work said it might also be attempt to distribute a controlled substance. edit: Or the A is the class and it's a Class A Driving under the Influence. chemosh6969 fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
reyalsnogard posted:In court, what is the admissibility of a self-reported move-in checklist that was not signed by the landlord, not even signed/initialed by the tenant *boggle*, and electronically returned via timestamped fax 45 days after the lease began? This checklist has a legalese timeframe (7 days) before Tenant "accept[s] full responsibility". Who created the document? Who sent the document to who? Which party is it being offered against? Was it produced in discovery? Has it been authenticated? Is any party disputing any part of the document? Is this document seperate or part of the lease\rental agreement. What state? From the above it sounds like the landlord gave a tenant a move in checklist that later was filled in, then sent back to the landlord via facsimile 45 days after the lease began. In the checklist is a clause that gives the tenant the ability to (I presume) identify issues with the property within 7 days or accept responsibility of the condition of the property. The document is unsigned. This about right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:From the above it sounds like the landlord gave a tenant a move in checklist that later was filled in, then sent back to the landlord via facsimile 45 days after the lease began. In the checklist is a clause that gives the tenant the ability to (I presume) identify issues with the property within 7 days or accept responsibility of the condition of the property. The document is unsigned. This about right? Arcturas posted:Sounds totally admissible. All those things sound like they're going to credibility, not admissibility. What you have is a written document purporting to describe the condition of the premises communicated from the tenant to the landlord. And the tenant can authenticate it. edit: where the disputed "pre-existing damage" was, for the sake of argument, caused by the tenant (either via moving in, settling, or neglect) during those 45 days. reyalsnogard fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
I've been digging around to see if this has been addressed, but I couldn't find anything. I hope this is the right place to ask. I live in Texas. I've been wanting to look into setting up some advanced directives or a living will, but I'm confused about what the appropriate documents are or how to get them set up. I don't have an estate or anything, so I'm not concerned about the financial side of things right now, just medical decisions. For context, there was a bit of a family battle pretty recently over medical decisions to be made on behalf of a relative who was in a coma. So, this has been on my mind for awhile. I want to be cremated, and I want to have it known that if I were to be in that sort of situation where I can't make my own decisions, I don't want any advanced measures that would threaten my quality of life to be taken (i.e. if I were in a vegetative state, just pull the drat cord). Because of my family's religious background, they're against both of those things, so I want to have my wishes known. Could someone point me in the right direction for how I can get started? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
discoukulele posted:I've been digging around to see if this has been addressed, but I couldn't find anything. I hope this is the right place to ask. Google "texas living will" https://www.texaslivingwill.org/ will be the first result. Their FAQ. The documents available there don't cover burial wishes, and needed a couple searches. "Texas Body Disposition and Authorization Affidavit" is what you're looking for. e: entris posted:I don't think that second link is worthwhile, joat. The statutory authority for that section, 711.002(g), simply authorizes three methods for declaring one's intentions; it doesn't affect the priority of who may give effect to those intentions. A better document would be the statutory form for "appointment of agent to control disposition of remains", found at 711.002(b). entris posted:discoukulele - go have an attorney draft up a simple will, a power of attorney for financial matters, and the advanced medical directive documents. I practice in this area and I abhor the use of forms. This is an important decision, don't go it alone. I'm sure you can find an attorney who can help you out for cheap. joat mon fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Sep 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
I don't think that second link is worthwhile, joat. The statutory authority for that section, 711.002(g), simply authorizes three methods for declaring one's intentions; it doesn't affect the priority of who may give effect to those intentions. A better document would be the statutory form for "appointment of agent to control disposition of remains", found at 711.002(b). discoukulele - go have an attorney draft up a simple will, a power of attorney for financial matters, and the advanced medical directive documents. I practice in this area and I abhor the use of forms. This is an important decision, don't go it alone. I'm sure you can find an attorney who can help you out for cheap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
reyalsnogard posted:I surmise most accidental tenant damage -- beyond neglect -- stems from moving in and out. If the checklist was returned after moving in (and after a month-and-a-half of occupancy) what impact can/does a belated checklist have in muting any tenant claim to "pre-existing damage" prior to their occupancy? Quite a bit depends on your state's evidence code. If it's being offered against the landlord I don't know if you can get around the hearsay rule.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
reyalsnogard posted:I surmise most accidental tenant damage -- beyond neglect -- stems from moving in and out. If the checklist was returned after moving in (and after a month-and-a-half of occupancy) what impact can/does a belated checklist have in muting any tenant claim to "pre-existing damage" prior to their occupancy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
entris posted:I don't think that second link is worthwhile, joat. The statutory authority for that section, 711.002(g), simply authorizes three methods for declaring one's intentions; it doesn't affect the priority of who may give effect to those intentions. A better document would be the statutory form for "appointment of agent to control disposition of remains", found at 711.002(b). What about a statutory form, like Health & Safety 166.033 for the advance directive? It seemed ok to me, if a bit confusing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:It'd help if you just spit out the drat problem instead of talking around it. Woozle, I want you to know that you are the best poster in this thread. Every time I sit down to type something, can't think of how to phrase it, and refresh, I come back and find you've already done it better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
reyalsnogard posted:Yes. A bit more eloquent than my initial statement but you've captured the idea. wait, so you're trying to argue that damage you caused moving in was preexisting damage?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:It'd help if you just spit out the drat problem instead of talking around it. Incredulous Red posted:wait, so you're trying to argue that damage you caused moving in was preexisting damage? reyalsnogard is an absentee landlord who is trying to sue a previous tenant for damage to the apartment that exceeded their original security deposit. Earlier he said that he was going to get representation but the slow trickle of questions makes me think that he is trying to go it alone. Based on his previous posts I am guessing the issue here is that the prior tenant is using the checklist as a defense against the damage claim, saying that some of it was pre-existing, and he would like to have it tossed? The way he has been posting has made it really unclear which side of the situation he is on, though. I don't know why I remember stuff like this, I am not even a lawyer and I just lurk the thread hoping to catch someone's unfolding legal nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Landlords should probably have lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Arcturas posted:Woozle, I want you to know that you are the best poster in this thread. Every time I sit down to type something, can't think of how to phrase it, and refresh, I come back and find you've already done it better. Wooot!  Ashcans posted:I don't know why I remember stuff like this reyalsnogard, even if the checklist doesn't prove the damage was pre-existing, how do you prove that they caused it? You'll say they caused it, they'll say they didn't. You need a lawyer or you're gonna lose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 15:22
|
|