Yesterday there was a lot of chatter in various fora about the recent near-tragedy at Austin Bergstrom Airport. Obviously you won't see this in the news, but apparently the cause of the incident was an air traffic controller who has a reputation in the industry for incompetence, but can't be fired because he continuously files EEOC claims.
> Most people who file EEOC claims lose their job.
I don't think you meant it that way, but your claim is false. It's saying that if you file an EEOC claim, you'll probably get fired.
The question we should be asking is, "how much crap are companies willing to put up with because the employee in question belongs to a protected group and the company fears EEOC claims even when those claims are unjustified?"
> I don't think you meant it that way, but your claim is false. It's saying that if you file an EEOC claim, you'll probably get fired.
I didn't mean that, but that may be the reality of the situation. In any case, it doesn't appear that filing an EEOC claim provides much protection. And as also noted in the article, the results are rarely favorable to the filer.
Again, in my experience, we assume anyone who is getting fired will file a claim of some sort. A claim has never stopped any firing that I know of.
Sure, but it is a lot harder. When someone knows how to file claims you need to carefully work out the paperwork. My brother was boss of such a person for a while, the need to carefully keep track of everything drove him to quit - the replacement enjoyed tracked everything and didn't need very long to have enough paperwork correct to fire the file claims on everything person.
Firing someone is a lot of work in general. It’s easily the worst part of my job. You always have to do the paperwork at a big company. EEOC or discrimination claims or not (you always assume they will file one at some point).
Anyone who says this is the reason a person isn’t fired is probably lying or doesn’t know the facts on the ground.
My experience is that avoiding such claims (EEO and others like them) is the single biggest reason for the existence of HR. They want you to think they're there to stick up for the employee, but making sure the company's butt is covered from liability is their real point.
And this ATC was hired and retained for DEI purposes? What relevance does this have, aside from insinuating that DEI is a scheme to replace good workers with incompetent ones?
> insinuating that DEI is a scheme to replace good workers with incompetent ones?
No, not that this is its purpose. But it may be the effect of how it's being implemented. Fealty to the gods of Equity prevent anyone from admitting that EEO claims can be a tool to unjustly shield bad workers.
IF it's not obvious, I don't mean that no EEO claims are justified. But on the other side of the coin, many of them are unjustified.
ATCs are high stress jobs where screw-ups can and will kill people. They cap the number of hours they can work per day, have mandatory breaks, and mandatory rest periods. Qualification to work in the field is hard -- and pay is often pretty good for that reason.
If this dude wasn't any good then he probably got shit-canned rapidly and played EEOC to CYA.
I think that is an example of where we wind up.