Skydiver claims he was fired for being gay

[skipbelt 0]

saying you are uncomfortable is an assertion , the test should be , would a REASONABLE person react the same , sexual harassment consists of unwanted sexual advances !

[ShotterMG 0]

Don has been around a long time. I am really surprised someone who knows him hasn't chimed in yet. He is by far the most offensive and abrasive person I have ever met at a DZ or elsewhere. I would have thought he would be black balled by every DZ in the country by now. The offense and his response to it sounds exactly like Don.
First post. New user name for obvious reasons.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

New user name for obvious reasons.

You don't want to get bitch slapped by a gay guy?

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[ShotterMG 0]

Haha. True! But seriously, I feel bad for this DZO. The press is calling him a homophobe. I have worked at a few drop zones over the years but only once have I seen a TI get accused of groping students. It was about ten years ago. And it was Don.

[skyrider 0]

All Bullshit aside, I thought most if not all skydivers were contractors...not employees, you really don;t need a reason of any kind to terminate a contrator..

That said, we let a Tandem master go at Perris, for far too many sexual complaints, he went from there to Hemit, and got released for the same reason...

Making a student Uncomfortable, Period, is reason for not using a person again! IMO..

I think it is just another matter of , "Because I'm Black, "because I'm gay", " Because I'm Muslim", yada yada yada complaint...

[popsjumper 2]

The Gay Card? Yeah, I agree.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Discrimination does not have to be based on employment.
Absolutely there is no way you can fire a contractor for reasons such as race, creed or religious beliefs and that fits into your "any reason" category.
You can make something up to get rid of someone which seems to be the allegation here. Like I said I've been through situations like this dozens of times and in my opinion it doesn't look good for the DZO.

You may not understand "right to work" states. The point is that the employer DOESN"T NEED a reason to fire a person in a right to work state. In fact, to steer clear of lawsuits, it might be best if the employer not give a reason for termination since none is rerquired. "Your services are no longer required" is all the employer needs to say.

Besides, you don't "fire" a contractor. You choose not to conduct future business with them.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[popsjumper 2]

I can't remember a time when I was fired when I wasn't an employee in the first place.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Remster 30]

Quote

You may not understand "right to work" states. The point is that the employer DOESN"T NEED a reason to fire a person in a right to work state. In fact, to steer clear of lawsuits, it might be best if the employer not give a reason for termination since none is rerquired. "Your services are no longer required" is all the employer needs to say.

AZ is a right to work state. Yet, to fire someone, you still need to cover your ass since some statute are federal.

Remster

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Quote

You may not understand "right to work" states. The point is that the employer DOESN"T NEED a reason to fire a person in a right to work state. In fact, to steer clear of lawsuits, it might be best if the employer not give a reason for termination since none is rerquired. "Your services are no longer required" is all the employer needs to say.

AZ is a right to work state. Yet, to fire someone, you still need to cover your ass since some statute are federal.

No you don't. That's my point. If an employer states why a person is being fired (supposedly covering their ass), they open up a can of worms. Tell a guy he's fired because he keeps showing up late and he'll get a lawyer and claim it's a "condition" that he can't help. Tell him he's being let go because no one can stand the way he smells, and you'll get sued for discriminating against people with a sweating problem.

The beauty of a right to work state is that all that crap can be avoided by NOT telling an employee why they are being canned.

It's simple. In a right to work state, tell the person they are terminated and show them to the door. Giving them a reason just gives them a starting point and ammo for a lawsuit.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[airdvr 210]

Am I the only one who sees "Right to Work" as a misnomer?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Remster 30]

Quote

It's simple. In a right to work state, tell the person they are terminated and show them to the door. Giving them a reason just gives them a starting point and ammo for a lawsuit.

And if they can come up with one comment that was made during their employment that show a potential for discrimination, they have a case (winnable or not is debatable, but courts will hear them), regardless if they have been given a reason for their termination or not. Look, I'm just telling it as it is in real life when managing people and working for a company that can be a target for suits.

Remster

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Quote

It's simple. In a right to work state, tell the person they are terminated and show them to the door. Giving them a reason just gives them a starting point and ammo for a lawsuit.

And if they can come up with one comment that was made during their employment that show a potential for discrimination, they have a case (winnable or not is debatable, but courts will hear them), regardless if they have been given a reason for their termination or not. Look, I'm just telling it as it is in real life when managing people and working for a company that can be a target for suits.

If an ex-employee wants to find something an employer said earlier in their employment, they can sue whether you give them a reason for termination or not.

I too am talking "real life". I live in Texas - a right to work state - and have been an employer, employee, contractor, and contractee for 20 years in this state. I've also been a person who has had an unenforcable "non-compete" agreement waved in my face by a multi-billion dollar media giant. They also thought they knew Texas law. Funny, they backed off after a call to the state.

Unhappy ex-employees happen. Lawsuits happen. But I assure you, anything you say and any reasons you give when firing someone that is of the lawsuit mentality will just be turned against you in court.

Don't hand 'em ammo when the law doesn't require you to.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[ShotterMG 0]

Here is Don's reply to my contribution to this thread. Clearly I was wrong about him. He is a real class act.

Mmmmm hmmm. It goes like this - the next time I'm at your DZ and I'm ass fucking you in the corner, turn your head and wink to give me a clue as to who you are!

I'm not saying you're gay; I'm just saying you're my BITCH!

No need to reply. In the future, if I need any more lip from you, Ill just scrape it from my zipper.

P.S. I found your long, lost brother; he's the dried up sperm in your dad's dirty sock in the bottom of the closet.

P.P.S. As for being a "fucking criminal," which you stated publicly, I cleared ALL these statements through the Supreme Warlock, with tiger-blood running in his veins, and even he agrees, I'M WINNING!

[davjohns 1]

Every dropzone is a bastion of conservative family values. This would never happen at my DZ.

Well, you don't need to be sexually attracted to someone to make sexual comments or grope them. It's often viewed as MORE funny because of the lack of sexual attraction. The guy's argument there doesn't hold water.

Still...given the environment I am familiar with at the DZ, this is an odd twist.

I wonder if the girl was looking for a freebie? Just curious.

I would hope there is more to the story. Firing the guy and then refusing to view the video together suggests something else is going on. That's what allows him to claim it is the sexual preference at issue.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Here is Don's reply to my contribution to this thread. Clearly I was wrong about him. He is a real class act.

Mmmmm hmmm. It goes like this - the next time I'm at your DZ and I'm ass fucking you in the corner, turn your head and wink to give me a clue as to who you are!

I'm not saying you're gay; I'm just saying you're my BITCH!

No need to reply. In the future, if I need any more lip from you, Ill just scrape it from my zipper.

P.S. I found your long, lost brother; he's the dried up sperm in your dad's dirty sock in the bottom of the closet.

P.P.S. As for being a "fucking criminal," which you stated publicly, I cleared ALL these statements through the Supreme Warlock, with tiger-blood running in his veins, and even he agrees, I'M WINNING!

um...ok.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[yobnoc 142]

Well...Who'd have thunk this would make it all the way to the Supreme Court?  All sorts of puff-pieces out there about this guy.  Nobody likes to speak ill of the departed, of course.  I have no opinion either way, because I didn't know him.  Just interesting reading these old posts with the case before the SCOTUS 9 years later.

[riggerrob 643]

Pursuing a legal case after a party has died is stupid and a waste of the Supreme Court's time.

His lawyers did not care if Zarda lived or died, they just wanted to accumulate the maximum number of billable hours.

For the record, I have no need to know about his sexual preferences unless he invites me into his bed.