Can illegally obtained evidence be used in the absence of evidence

[Rubio acero]

That's not retaliation, nor is it illegal discrimination based on age.

do you want to explain to me the facts that would support that claim or are you just giving a bias opinion. Because that is crystal clear in your face illegal discrimination based on age and retaliation

 

[Rubio acero]

And which court would that be? I'm curious.

When I say this I'm saying that the reason either listed for termination is false and that the reason is an illegal one.

 

[Rubio acero]

What if the "insults" are simply observations of fact based upon the behavior of the individual in question?

I've heard alot of stupid things in my day but this has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of. Ok so let me explain to you why that is a derogatory statement the statement is not just directed at me or my behavior but rather everyone that is my age as a whole there for it is a derogatory statement based on age and not based on my actions. In order for it to be an observence of facts there has to be a fact he made no statement of facts and simple made a derogatory remarI.

 

[Rubio acero]

Two things to understand here. First, under federal law age discrimination claims are only possible for employees age 40 and older. Are you at least age 40? If the answer is no then you don't have a good age discrimination claim under federal law. Perhaps you might under state law though. First, while he was expressing an opinion about people of "your generation" it's not clearly harassment based on age. However, if there were a series of insults based on age that might set the stage for a claim of hostile work environment based, which would amount to a type of illegal discrimination based on age.

Can you link that law please.

 

[Just Blue]

Can you link that law please.

Google is your friend.

https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination#:~:text=Applicants, employees and former employees,(including family medical history).

 

[LdiJ]

Can you link that law please.

Do you understand why age discrimination is even an issue legally? The purpose of the age discrimination laws is to prevent employers from refusing to hire people over 40 or trying to get rid of people over 40 because they cost too much to insure and because they have moved up the ranks and get paid more than younger employees. In other words, a factory cannot fire 100 people over 40 and fill them with 100 18 year old's who they can pay 1/3 of what the over 40's were making, PLUS save a bunch of money on their health insurance.

The law cares squat about any age discrimination that an employer puts in place other than that. An employer can declare that they won't hire anybody who is between the age of 25-30 just because they think that age group are idiots and the law doesn't care.

 

[Rubio acero]

Google is your friend.

https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination#:~:text=Applicants, employees and former employees,(including family medical history).

I think maryland protects against all ages I tried googling the state laws and I found a posting by maryland.gov but it doesn't take you to a site but rather downloads a pdf

 

[LdiJ]

I think maryland protects against all ages I tried googling the state laws and I found a posting by maryland.gov but it doesn't take you to a site but rather downloads a pdf

That is pretty common with state law websites. Many things are PDFs. If you want to view the info you have to download the PDF.

 

[Rubio acero]

Do you understand why age discrimination is even an issue legally? The purpose of the age discrimination laws is to prevent employers from refusing to hire people over 40 or trying to get rid of people over 40 because they cost too much to insure and because they have moved up the ranks and get paid more than younger employees. In other words, a factory cannot fire 100 people over 40 and fill them with 100 18 year old's who they can pay 1/3 of what the over 40's were making, PLUS save a bunch of money on their health insurance.

The law cares squat about any age discrimination that an employer puts in place other than that. An employer can declare that they won't hire anybody who is between the age of 25-30 just because they think that age group are idiots and the law doesn't care.

I know exactly why these laws exist however if you want to go down that road then at will employment is impractical it essentially allows employment discrimination.

 

[Rubio acero]

That is pretty common with state law websites. Many things are PDFs. If you want to view the info you have to download the PDF.

No because I was curious if it was true or not I know first hand that alot of things you read online aren't actually legitimate.

 

[Just Blue]

https://www.peoples-law.org/employment-discrimination#:~:text=Employers may not harass or,fire, or

 

[Just Blue]

No because I was curious if it was true or not I know first hand that alot of things you read online aren't actually legitimate.

Take your "proof" to a local employment law attorney and have them explain the law and let you know if you have a case.

 

[LdiJ]

I know exactly why these laws exist however if you want to go down that road then at will employment is impractical it essentially allows employment discrimination.

Of course it allows employment discrimination.

The government has no interest in dictating how companies hire and fire employees except for certain protected characteristics. The government understands that employers have the right to choose whom to hire and whom to fire based on their own standards, assuming that a protected characteristic isn't violated.

However, the government does give some protection to employees fired on a whim by allowing them to collect unemployment if the employer cannot prove that they were fired for cause.

 

[cbg]

I'm not wasting any more time on this guy. He's made his mind up and he doesn't want to be confused with the facts.

 

[Rubio acero]

Of course it allows employment discrimination.

The government has no interest in dictating how companies hire and fire employees except for certain protected characteristics. The government understands that employers have the right to choose whom to hire and whom to fire based on their own standards, assuming that a protected characteristic isn't violated.

However, the government does give some protection to employees fired on a whim by allowing them to collect unemployment if the employer cannot prove that they were fired for cause.

this is all true but I'm not trying to get free money besides I think it's just putting a bandaid on the issue.