... or if it was racially motivated. If he was paid less for the same deal and had the same contract with IBM as the other sales person, they deserve to be sued and he deserves to be paid what he was owed.
... or if it was racially motivated. If he was paid less for the same deal and had the same contract with IBM as the other sales person, they deserve to be sued and he deserves to be paid what he was owed.
If his compensation was really set solely by a contract, and if they were really identical, sure. One suspects it was possibly slightly more complex than that.
If his compensation was really set solely by a contract, and if they were really identical, sure. One suspects it was possibly slightly more complex than that.
The evidence of two court cases and his own manager aside, you've decided to die on the hill that "it was possibly more complex than that."
But no, you're not defending racism by claiming that this wasn't it.
If his compensation was really set solely by a contract, and if they were really identical, sure. One suspects it was possibly slightly more complex than that.
The evidence of two court cases and his own manager aside, you've decided to die on the hill that "it was possibly more complex than that."
But no, you're not defending racism by claiming that this wasn't it.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. If there's any direct evidence of racism, the article didn't bother to present it.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. If there's any direct evidence of racism, the article didn't bother to present it.
The accuser presented his evidence to his manager, who agreed. The accuser presented his evidence to a judge, who refused to dismiss, whereupon IBM settled. The accuser's manager presented his evidence to a jury, who agreed and awarded a $11.1 million conclusion. Each have seen the contract.
You, however, have not seen the contract. You are, of course entitled to an opinion, but you are
The burden of proof is on the accuser. If there's any direct evidence of racism, the article didn't bother to present it.
The accuser presented his evidence to his manager, who agreed. The accuser presented his evidence to a judge, who refused to dismiss, whereupon IBM settled. The accuser's manager presented his evidence to a jury, who agreed and awarded a $11.1 million conclusion. Each have seen the contract.
You, however, have not seen the contract. You are, of course entitled to an opinion, but you are neither entitled to declare facts nor declare your unfounded opinion to be worth
a damn. Nothing of your opinion can undo a conclusion by 12 people with actual evidence in hand. Nothing of your opinion can compel me to weight it more highly than that jury's conclusion.
You are not the self-appointed arbiter of what happened here. You are, in fact, the accuser in this instance. And if there's any direct evidence that there was not racism, you certainly haven't bothered to present it. We're not relitigating this from first principles for your convenience and amusement. A judgment has been rendered, and it is your burden to show why it was erroneous, not the article's to justify it.
Again, if it is so cut and dried and irrefutable, then it should be easy to actually mention some evidence to the public. Nobody has bothered to do so, so I guess I'm free to doubt whatever I want to doubt. And even to express my doubts! Scary.
That's nice that you believe that court cases are never wrongly decided. If that's a principle for the left now, I guess I had missed that.
Again, if it is so cut and dried and irrefutable, then it should be easy to actually mention some evidence to the public.
Nope. Nobody cares what some random member of the public thinks. The manager got his judgment and his compensation. IBM lost its trial. Unless you're an appellate judge, you're irrelevant.
That's nice that you believe that court cases are never wrongly decided. If that's a principle for the left now, I guess I had missed that.
Funny, I thought that the right was all "law and order." Or
It doesn't even matter his race... (Score:5, Insightful)
... or if it was racially motivated. If he was paid less for the same deal and had the same contract with IBM as the other sales person, they deserve to be sued and he deserves to be paid what he was owed.
Re: (Score:3)
... or if it was racially motivated. If he was paid less for the same deal and had the same contract with IBM as the other sales person, they deserve to be sued and he deserves to be paid what he was owed.
If his compensation was really set solely by a contract, and if they were really identical, sure. One suspects it was possibly slightly more complex than that.
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence of two court cases and his own manager aside, you've decided to die on the hill that "it was possibly more complex than that."
But no, you're not defending racism by claiming that this wasn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence of two court cases and his own manager aside, you've decided to die on the hill that "it was possibly more complex than that."
But no, you're not defending racism by claiming that this wasn't it.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. If there's any direct evidence of racism, the article didn't bother to present it.
Re: (Score:2)
The accuser presented his evidence to his manager, who agreed. The accuser presented his evidence to a judge, who refused to dismiss, whereupon IBM settled. The accuser's manager presented his evidence to a jury, who agreed and awarded a $11.1 million conclusion. Each have seen the contract.
You, however, have not seen the contract. You are, of course entitled to an opinion, but you are
Re:It doesn't even matter his race... (Score:2)
The accuser presented his evidence to his manager, who agreed. The accuser presented his evidence to a judge, who refused to dismiss, whereupon IBM settled. The accuser's manager presented his evidence to a jury, who agreed and awarded a $11.1 million conclusion. Each have seen the contract.
You, however, have not seen the contract. You are, of course entitled to an opinion, but you are neither entitled to declare facts nor declare your unfounded opinion to be worth a damn. Nothing of your opinion can undo a conclusion by 12 people with actual evidence in hand. Nothing of your opinion can compel me to weight it more highly than that jury's conclusion.
You are not the self-appointed arbiter of what happened here. You are, in fact, the accuser in this instance. And if there's any direct evidence that there was not racism, you certainly haven't bothered to present it. We're not relitigating this from first principles for your convenience and amusement. A judgment has been rendered, and it is your burden to show why it was erroneous, not the article's to justify it.
Again, if it is so cut and dried and irrefutable, then it should be easy to actually mention some evidence to the public. Nobody has bothered to do so, so I guess I'm free to doubt whatever I want to doubt. And even to express my doubts! Scary.
That's nice that you believe that court cases are never wrongly decided. If that's a principle for the left now, I guess I had missed that.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Nobody cares what some random member of the public thinks. The manager got his judgment and his compensation. IBM lost its trial. Unless you're an appellate judge, you're irrelevant.
Funny, I thought that the right was all "law and order." Or
Re: (Score:2)
If one of the people involved in any dispute is black, and the other not black, then by definition it is a case of racism.
(I also suspect it is more complex than that.)