Is this Discrimination?

[CatugalCat]

No they did not say that I was unreliable.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Did they say they didn't want to let you stay because you have a history of being fired for failing a drug test?

 

[seniorjudge]

No they did not say that I was unreliable.

You quit.

End of story.

By the way, what is all this "Hawaiian" business?

That means a person who lives in Hawaii.

It is not racial or ethnic.

It's like saying, "They fired me because I was a Coloradan."

 

[cbg]

You not only quit, you quit without notice.

 

[>Charlotte<]

That's an interesting point, SJ, but are you sure?

I think of "native Hawaiians" the same way I think of "American Indians". I wouldn't consider them American Indian, of course, but I do think they're a distinct aboriginal ethnicity. Then again, I've seen the designation of "American Indian" on census forms (or whatever) but I don't recall ever seeing anything to designate a Hawaiian ethnicity. But I really don't see the difference.

Anyway, I've been thinking that if the issue here was discrimination (which it's not, because that is superseded by her quitting), she'd actually have a point. But now you've got me wondering if I'm wrong about that.

I guess we can agree that native Hawaiians are not Caucasian. So, what are they? And are you sure they're not a legally recognized ethnicity or race?

 

[mitousmom]

Native Hawaiians are a distinct ethnic and racial group. They fall into the racial category of Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders. See http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_race_color.html. Furthermore, Hawaii was inhabited by native peoples for centuries. It was also a kingdom and a republic before it became a part of the United States.

I'm not sure why you all are hung up on the fact that the OP quit. Maybe, you find that quitting makes an employee unreliable and objectionable. However, if the OP's employer allowed an employee to quit five times, it doesn't or at least doesn't for some employees. The OP alleges that it doesn't for Hawaiians, but does for others. That's a classic discrimination allegation.

 

[>Charlotte<]

I'm not sure why you all are hung up on the fact that the OP quit. Maybe, you find that quitting makes an employee unreliable and objectionable. However, if the OP's employer allowed an employee to quit five times, it doesn't or at least doesn't for some employees. The OP alleges that it doesn't for Hawaiians, but does for others. That's a classic discrimination allegation.

I'm "hung up" on the fact that OP quit because that's why she lost her job. They didn't fire her because she's not Hawaiian, and they didn't refuse to hire her in the first place because she's not Hawaiian. She quit.

Personally, whether quitting makes an employee unreliable and objectionable would, to me, depend on the employee. But how I or the OP would define an undesirable employee doesn't matter. It's how her employer defines undesirable that matters. Different employers have different criteria.

If an employer allows an employee who quits to keep his job, that does not mean the employer must do the same for everybody. If the employee they kept happens to be Hawaiian and the OP happens to be Caucasian, that's perfectly legal. The burden is on OP to prove that the employer's criteria is strictly and illegally discriminatory. I guarantee you the employer will be able to articulate why they find OP undesirable and why they allowed the Hawaiian to quit five times for reasons other than illegal discrimination.

She wasn't not hired. She wasn't fired. She quit. Yes, that matters. This really isn't all that hard to understand.

Oh--and incidentally, only eleven states recognize the "Covenant of Good Faith" (or "Implied In-Law" contracts) with regard to exceptions to the doctrine of at-will employment. Hawaii is not one of them.

 

[seniorjudge]

That's an interesting point, SJ, but are you sure?

I think of "native Hawaiians" the same way I think of "American Indians". I wouldn't consider them American Indian, of course, but I do think they're a distinct aboriginal ethnicity. Then again, I've seen the designation of "American Indian" on census forms (or whatever) but I don't recall ever seeing anything to designate a Hawaiian ethnicity. But I really don't see the difference.

Anyway, I've been thinking that if the issue here was discrimination (which it's not, because that is superseded by her quitting), she'd actually have a point. But now you've got me wondering if I'm wrong about that.

I guess we can agree that native Hawaiians are not Caucasian. So, what are they? And are you sure they're not a legally recognized ethnicity or race?

Up to this post, there was no mention of "native Hawaiians".

And I, in fact, did not question anything about "native Hawaiians".

Re-read my post.

 

[fairisfair]

Native Hawaiians are a distinct ethnic and racial group. They fall into the racial category of Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders. See http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_race_color.html. Furthermore, Hawaii was inhabited by native peoples for centuries. It was also a kingdom and a republic before it became a part of the United States.

I'm not sure why you all are hung up on the fact that the OP quit. Maybe, you find that quitting makes an employee unreliable and objectionable. However, if the OP's employer allowed an employee to quit five times, it doesn't or at least doesn't for some employees. The OP alleges that it doesn't for Hawaiians, but does for others. That's a classic discrimination allegation.

It's also a classic" employee shows their butt and thinks they are indispensable"allegation.

that is ridiculous (surprise, surprise surprise). we are talking TWO employees here, not a plethora of repetitive discriminatory practices.

and you don't even know WHY the other person quit. Perhaps he quit to take care of a dying relative.

Of course the employee can address this with the EEOC. and we BOTH know where that is gonna go. NOWHERE.

 

[fairisfair]

Up to this post, there was no mention of "native Hawaiians".

And I, in fact, did not question anything about "native Hawaiians".

Re-read my post.

Of course SJ is right. ANYONE, regardless of race or ethnicity, who LIVES in Hawaii; is a Hawaiian.

 

[>Charlotte<]

In the context of the Hawai&#699;i Revised Statutes, section 10-2, Hawaiians are defined as:

any descendant of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, and which peoples thereafter have continued to reside in Hawai&#699;i.

Native Hawaiians are defined as:

any descendant of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778, as defined by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended; provided that the term identically refers to the descendants of such blood quantum of such aboriginal peoples which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778 and which peoples thereafter continued to reside in Hawaii.

There is also a difference between Native (capitalized) Hawaiians and native (not capitalized) Hawaiians.

 

[seniorjudge]

In the context of the Hawai&#699;i Revised Statutes, section 10-2, Hawaiians are defined as:

any descendant of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, and which peoples thereafter have continued to reside in Hawai&#699;i.

Native Hawaiians are defined as:

any descendant of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778, as defined by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended; provided that the term identically refers to the descendants of such blood quantum of such aboriginal peoples which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778 and which peoples thereafter continued to reside in Hawaii.

There is also a difference between Native (capitalized) Hawaiians and native (not capitalized) Hawaiians.

Hmmmm....

Sounds racist to me.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Hmmmm....Sounds racist to me.

Maybe OP can sue the state of Hawaii.

But now I'm really puzzled. I'm a North Carolinian. Someone from New York is a New Yorker. If the state of Hawaii wants to be that picky about what constitutes being a "Hawaiian", what do they call the people who aren't native, but live there? Jim Nabors?

 

[spallanzani]

If the state of Hawaii wants to be that picky about what constitutes being a "Hawaiian", what do they call the people who aren't native, but live there? Jim Nabors?

...They call them 'Hawaiians.' Or 'native Hawaiians.' Just not 'Native Hawaiians.'

Mainland American does the same thing. I can call myself an American native or a native American (ethnically I'm a European mutt) and not be committing a faux pas. But I shouldn't go around calling myself a Native American, for I am not.

 

[mitousmom]

Of course SJ is right. ANYONE, regardless of race or ethnicity, who LIVES in Hawaii; is a Hawaiian.

By your definition the OP is a Hawaiian. I assume that he lives in Hawaii. He couldn't commute daily to Hawaii to drive a truck. Obviously he's not talking simply about himself and people who live in Hawaii. Besides, he states, "I do not have hawaiian blood, and those of us that do not seem to get called into the office for every little thing."

If you can't see the distinction between people of non-Hawaiian descent who live in Hawaiian and Native Hawaiians or those with "Hawaiian blood," as the OP phrases it, so be it. Fortunately, the federal EEO laws make that distinction.

Every disparate treatment allegation is about two individuals, one class member and one non-class member treated differently under similar circumstances. And, under the seminal disparate treatment discrimination ruling by the Supreme Court, that's all that is needed. There is no requirement for a "plethora of repetitive discriminatory practices." However, this OP states that those who do not have Hawaiian blood, "seem to get called into the office for every little thing." So, he does provide information that suggests a pattern of discrimination against non-Hawaiians.

For federal EEO purposes, this is a failure to rehire case. Contrary to this unreliability nonsense, we don't know why the employer didn't rehire the OP and we don't know why the employer decided to rehire another employee five times. The OP believes it was because he wasn't Hawaiian, because the employee rehired five times was Hawaiian. He also believes that Hawaiians generally are treated more favorably when it comes to infractions. He makes out a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination.

Should he file, the EEOC or the state equivalent will require the employer to provide its legitimate non discriminatory reason for not rehiring the OP and its reason for rehiring the Hawaiian. They also may require the employer to provide information on its disciplinary practices. They will be looking for facts and ultimately evidence, not making up reasons for the employer's difference in treatment.

If you don't get it, you don't get it! The OP is the one who needed the information. He got it. Subsequent readers who need similar information will have it. They will also see that people disagree about the interpretation of the law and the "facts" presented, so it's best to go to an authority. Consulting with EEOC or a state equivalent is free.