Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Too white?

I'm too tired to get into this right now, but I certainly think this lawsuit is absurd. What's even more absurd is that AF most likely had to settle in order to avoid costly litigation. And what's even more absurd is that the plaintiff's lawyer will take a third of that settlement. And (last thing) who exactly does the lawsuit benefit? Who has been so wronged that they deserve $50 million dollars? If this is what they settled for, then I don't even want to know what the plaintiffs were asking.

If anyone has any comments, please post them. I think this might be something worthwhile to write about for my column this Friday, although I'm sure it will inspire some hate mail, and I could use some other insights.

1 Comments:

At 7:06 PM, Blogger Tortfeasor said...

Since the EEOC took on this claim, I don't think there would be any contigent fee agreement with private plaintiffs' lawyers. I could be wrong about this, but I think that's the case.

That said, this is just absurd. Are we to believe that Abercrombie clothes are equally attractive to people of all races? Does the same go for FUBU?

This is the problem with Title VII employment discrimination cases based on race -- there is no exception for "bona fide occupational qualification." In other words, the statute assumes that there is never any justifiable reason to discriminate based on race (except for in affirmative action programs, of course). The BFOQ exception is what allows only women to work as waitresses at Hooters. And while BFOQ should obviously be a narrower exception for race, I can think of some situations in which an employer might say "I need a black dude" or "I need a Chinese dude" to fill a certain position (like, say, a director casting a movie about Malcolm X).

 

Post a Comment

<< Home