School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath

[ronburgundy]

Bomb, "it" is a non-gendered reference to "Contractor" which - in this case - is her. SHE is the independent contractor being hired by the school. SHE is the contractor who will be held to all of the terms of this contract.

If your entire argument here hinged on the word "it" referring to something or someone other than her, you are 100% incorrect.

"Contractor" is clearly referring to "Company", the definition of which is given right in the statement!

As has been explained, if she, as the representative of her "Company", boycotted Israeli materials used in her profession, that would be in violation of the contract, but her refusing to buy Israeli goods for personal use outside of work and speaking about it would not violate the contract.

Like the majority of people who do such consulting work, she likely does not have a "company", but is just an individual person who would be signing the contract as an individual person, using nothing but her personal name. That makes anything she personally does the same thing as something her "company" is doing.

 

[laughing dog]

Bomb, "it" is a non-gendered reference to "Contractor" which - in this case - is her. SHE is the independent contractor being hired by the school. SHE is the contractor who will be held to all of the terms of this contract.

If your entire argument here hinged on the word "it" referring to something or someone other than her, you are 100% incorrect.

"Contractor" is clearly referring to "Company", the definition of which is given right in the statement!

As has been explained, if she, as the representative of her "Company", boycotted Israeli materials used in her profession, that would be in violation of the contract, but her refusing to buy Israeli goods for personal use outside of work and speaking about it would not violate the contract.

Like the majority of people who do such consulting work, she likely does not have a "company", but is just an individual person who would be signing the contract as an individual person, using nothing but her personal name. That makes anything she personally does the same thing as something her "company" is doing.

And, even if it does not, the burden of proof would be on her. The school district would terminate the contract, and it would be up to her to convince a judge or a jury that the termination was unjust. Most independent contractors do not have the resources to go to court.

 

[Axulus]

Like the majority of people who do such consulting work, she likely does not have a "company", but is just an individual person who would be signing the contract as an individual person, using nothing but her personal name. That makes anything she personally does the same thing as something her "company" is doing.

And, even if it does not, the burden of proof would be on her. The school district would terminate the contract, and it would be up to her to convince a judge or a jury that the termination was unjust. Most independent contractors do not have the resources to go to court.

Why would the school district terminate her contract? It sounded like the school district didn't even want to include that section in the contract (as they looked for a way to avoid it but were bound by state law). The only way she would run into problems is if someone filed a complaint or a state enforcement agency contracted the school district.

Seeing as she refused to sign, lost the contract, and is suing the state, how would it be worse for her to sign and then sue the state upon an unlikely termination? In fact, her case would be far stronger in the termination scenario if she can demonstrate she was boycotting in her personal and not professional capacity, ie, a wrongful termination.

 

[RavenSky]

Bomb, "it" is a non-gendered reference to "Contractor" which - in this case - is her. SHE is the independent contractor being hired by the school. SHE is the contractor who will be held to all of the terms of this contract.

If your entire argument here hinged on the word "it" referring to something or someone other than her, you are 100% incorrect.

"Contractor" is clearly referring to "Company", the definition of which is given right in the statement!

As has been explained, if she, as the representative of her "Company", boycotted Israeli materials used in her profession, that would be in violation of the contract, but her refusing to buy Israeli goods for personal use outside of work and speaking about it would not violate the contract.

1. I read the entire lawsuit, including the entire attached Exhibit "A" contract in question. Did you? It doesn't sound like you did.
2. That is the WORST fucking contract I have ever read. It appears to have been pieced together from multiple sources without any attempt to unify the language. For instance, they randomly use "company", "firm", "business entity", "a person", "respondent", "bidder", "proposer", "vendor", and/or "firm" throughout the contract... all referring to the independent contractor expected to sign the contract.
3. There is no "definitions" section in this contract. As noted in #2, whoever wrote this contract uses multiple words interchangeably throughout. They should have defined "Contactor" as referring to all of the above, then consistently used "Contractor" throughout.
4. As for your uniformed attempt to school me, you've utterly and laughably failed.

Let's look at the definition of "company" that you are so pitifully going on about:

"Company" means a for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exists to make a profit.

Do you know what a "sole proprietor" is? Obviously not.

A sole proprietor is someone who owns an unincorporated business by himself or herself.

In other words, for the purposes of this clause in this mishmash of a contract, the "company" being referred to is Bahia Amawi herself. No one else. No non-existent corporation. She's not the representative of a company. She IS the "company". Just her.

 

[laughing dog]

Like the majority of people who do such consulting work, she likely does not have a "company", but is just an individual person who would be signing the contract as an individual person, using nothing but her personal name. That makes anything she personally does the same thing as something her "company" is doing.

And, even if it does not, the burden of proof would be on her. The school district would terminate the contract, and it would be up to her to convince a judge or a jury that the termination was unjust. Most independent contractors do not have the resources to go to court.

Why would the school district terminate her contract? It sounded like the school district didn't even want to include that section in the contract (as they looked for a way to avoid it but were bound by state law). The only way she would run into problems is if someone filed a complaint or a state enforcement agency contracted the school district.

Are you sure about that?

Seeing as she refused to sign, lost the contract, and is suing the state, how would it be worse for her to sign and then sue the state upon an unlikely termination?

Is she suing the state or is someone suing the state on her behalf?

 

[Trausti]

 

[untermensche]

These kinds of boycotts don't work until enough people join in and a tipping point is reached.

The sick oppression by Israel should stop.

But it is not clear there is a power in the world to force it to stop.

 

[ruby sparks]

Like the majority of people who do such consulting work, she likely does not have a "company", but is just an individual person who would be signing the contract as an individual person, using nothing but her personal name. That makes anything she personally does the same thing as something her "company" is doing.

And, even if it does not, the burden of proof would be on her. The school district would terminate the contract, and it would be up to her to convince a judge or a jury that the termination was unjust. Most independent contractors do not have the resources to go to court.

Why would the school district terminate her contract? It sounded like the school district didn't even want to include that section in the contract (as they looked for a way to avoid it but were bound by state law). The only way she would run into problems is if someone filed a complaint or a state enforcement agency contracted the school district.

Seeing as she refused to sign, lost the contract, and is suing the state, how would it be worse for her to sign and then sue the state upon an unlikely termination? In fact, her case would be far stronger in the termination scenario if she can demonstrate she was boycotting in her personal and not professional capacity, ie, a wrongful termination.

After looking at her video again, I reckon she would have felt she could not sign the contract even if it did only limit her in her professional role*, because she felt that she could not sign in all conscience and out of principle.

*Imo the contract is not fully clear on this and nor is it fully clear which way she interpreted it as regards when it would apply to her, but in the end I think it's largely academic to whether she would have signed or not. Either way, her not signing is her form of protest. In that sense, signing was never an option, and the risk of signing and being sued for breach would for her be largely beside the point it seems.

 

[James Madison]

Bomb, "it" is a non-gendered reference to "Contractor" which - in this case - is her. SHE is the independent contractor being hired by the school. SHE is the contractor who will be held to all of the terms of this contract.

If your entire argument here hinged on the word "it" referring to something or someone other than her, you are 100% incorrect.

"Contractor" is clearly referring to "Company", the definition of which is given right in the statement!

As has been explained, if she, as the representative of her "Company", boycotted Israeli materials used in her profession, that would be in violation of the contract, but her refusing to buy Israeli goods for personal use outside of work and speaking about it would not violate the contract.

Like the majority of people who do such consulting work, she likely does not have a "company", but is just an individual person who would be signing the contract as an individual person, using nothing but her personal name. That makes anything she personally does the same thing as something her "company" is doing.

You start with the idea there is no company in existence but then end up concluding everything she does personally is “the same thing...her company is doing.” Oh? You mean the company you just said didn’t exist?

Conceptually, she’s no different from an attorney who is a solo practitioner, practicing law from within his home. He is his business. When he’s writing a brief, complaint, trial prep, or speaking in court during a hearing, he’s an attorney and acting in a capacity as an attorney. But that identity of being an attorney doesn’t consume every aspect of his life such that all that exists for him is his life as an attorney. He also has a life separate and distinct from his business of practicing law. When he’s buying groceries he isn’t acting as an attorney but as a private individual. When he’s watching a movie at a theater he isn’t acting as an attorney but in his private capacity.

Your notion there’s no distinction between her profession as a speech pathologist and acting as a private individual, separate and distinct from her profession as a speech pathologist, is untenable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Why would the school district terminate her contract? It sounded like the school district didn't even want to include that section in the contract (as they looked for a way to avoid it but were bound by state law). The only way she would run into problems is if someone filed a complaint or a state enforcement agency contracted the school district.

Seeing as she refused to sign, lost the contract, and is suing the state, how would it be worse for her to sign and then sue the state upon an unlikely termination? In fact, her case would be far stronger in the termination scenario if she can demonstrate she was boycotting in her personal and not professional capacity, ie, a wrongful termination.

After looking at her video again, I reckon she would have felt she could not sign the contract even if it did only limit her in her professional role*, because she felt that she could not sign in all conscience and out of principle.

*Imo the contract is not fully clear on this and nor is it fully clear which way she interpreted it as regards when it would apply to her, but in the end I think it's largely academic to whether she would have signed or not. Either way, her not signing is her form of protest. In that sense, signing was never an option, and the risk of signing and being sued for breach would for her be largely beside the point it seems.

What is “this” referring to in the phrase “contract is not fully clear on this”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ruby sparks]

What is “this” referring to in the phrase “contract is not fully clear on this”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The wording is not fully clear on whether it means 'must not boycott Israel only during the hours and role of working for us' or 'must not boycott Israel at any time during the contract period of time'. In other words, whether, if she went on TV to declare that she was boycotting Israel in her personal, non-working life, it would be a breach of what she signed, if she had signed.

It does seem very likely to me that the declaration did not intend this, but it's not clear in the declaration.

 

[James Madison]

What is “this” referring to in the phrase “contract is not fully clear on this”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The wording is not fully clear on whether it means 'must not boycott Israel only while working for us' or 'must not boycott Israel at any time during the contract term'. In other words, whether, if she went on TV to declare that she was boycotting Israel in her personal, non-working life, it would be a breach of what she signed, if she had signed.

It does seem more likely to me that the declaration did not intend this, but it's not clear in the declaration.

Despite the fact that the word “contractor” is used for the boycott provision? Despite the fact that the word “it” is also used?

The relevant contract provision is reasonably clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ruby sparks]

What is “this” referring to in the phrase “contract is not fully clear on this”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The wording is not fully clear on whether it means 'must not boycott Israel only while working for us' or 'must not boycott Israel at any time during the contract term'. In other words, whether, if she went on TV to declare that she was boycotting Israel in her personal, non-working life, it would be a breach of what she signed, if she had signed.

It does seem more likely to me that the declaration did not intend this, but it's not clear in the declaration.

Despite the fact that the word “contractor” is used for the boycott provision? Despite the fact that the word “it” is also used?

The relevant contract provision is reasonably clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, one could say that it is reasonably clear. But I don't think it's entirely clear, when the 'it' is her (which it is). For example, a sportsperson agrees not to drink Pepsi. Is he free to be seen drinking Pepsi when not at games, or not?

I think it's largely an academic point. It doesn't bear on anything I am interested in. It may have a bearing on her case though.

 

[ruby sparks]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otRfQdzAbOA[/YOUTUBE]

Another similar case, taken in 2017 in Kansas, still ongoing, as far as I can see (the 'big win' - for the teacher - referred to seemed to be only a preliminary and temporary injunction in January 2018). The youtube video is from February 2118. I don't know the final outcome of the case, or if there has been one yet.

This report is dated may 2018:
http://freespeechproject.georgetown...es-down-kansas-anti-boycott-law-january-2018/

 

[Bomb#20]

Why exactly is the terrorist state of Israel protected in this unusual manner?

What unusual manner? This is a perfectly normal manner for state governments and the feds to protect those they wish to protect. It's actually quite a mild manner, compared to the manner they often use. When states want to protect gays from boycotts they don't just refuse to buy from businesses that boycott gays -- they bar those businesses from selling to anyone.

Why should any American give two <expletive deleted> about what happens to the terrorist state of Israel?

Why should you derail every thread you can with your hobbyhorse? This is a thread about Ms. Amawi and whether the contract violates her free speech rights. Whether Israel is a terrorist state and whether it deserves the protection the people of Texas have granted it is off-topic.

Why should any of this language exist?

Why are you asking me? I didn't vote for it. I didn't vote for any of the legislators who voted for it.

 

[ruby sparks]

This from July 2018 says the case was dismissed after Kansas amended the law (state to pay plaintiff's costs):

https://www.timesofisrael.com/lawsu...i-bds-law-state-to-pay-plaintiffs-legal-fees/

"In March, in an attempt to salvage the law, the Kansas legislature narrowed the scope of the legislation, making it apply only to businesses and not individuals, and made it apply only to contracts higher than $100,000."

 

[untermensche]

The language exists because fundamentalist Christians believe that the present day brutal nation that calls itself Israel was written about thousands of years ago in the Book of Revelations.

It is absolute insanity in other words.

Nothing insane about protecting people who are gay.

Something very strange about protecting a nation that has been oppressing millions of people for decades.

 

[ruby sparks]

In April, the [Kansas] Legislature enacted changes to the law, narrowing its scope in three ways.

First, the anti-boycott certification requirement no longer applies to individuals or sole proprietors.

Second, the certification requirement applies to companies only if they conduct more than $100,000 worth of business with the state.

Finally, companies required to sign the certification must now state that they are “not engaged in a boycott of goods or services from Israel that constitute an integral part of business conducted or sought to be conducted with the state.”

https://www.aclu.org/news/after-court-defeat-kansas-changes-law-aimed-boycotts-israel

 

[Bomb#20]

...The school obviously did not tell Amawi to sign a pledge that "you do not currently boycott Israel". The school just told her to sign the stupid contract as issued to her, "it" and all.

The notion that this contract binds Amawi's personal actions outside her job activity is blatantly Greenwald's own personal interpretation. It's nothing that the school insisted on.

Bomb, "it" is a non-gendered reference to "Contractor" which - in this case - is her.

Raven, when legislators want to make a non-gendered reference to a human being they write "he or she". Like the rest of us, they do not write "it" for that purpose unless they're referring to an infant.

Moreover, the contract provision is perfectly plain that it is there because of chapter 2270 of the Texas Government Code. The topic of chapter 2270 is "Prohibition on contracts with companies boycotting Israel." The law doesn't say "Prohibition on contracts with men or women boycotting Israel".

SHE is the independent contractor being hired by the school. SHE is the contractor who will be held to all of the terms of this contract.

Indeed so, but the point in dispute is whether "all of the terms of the contract" include any terms about what she does on her own time in non-speech-therapy-related activities. Do you feel twice writing "she" in all capital letters improves the case for one side of that dispute?

If your entire argument here hinged on the word "it" referring to something or someone other than her, you are 100% incorrect.

Well then, we can add your blatant assertion to laughing dog's blatant assertion, on one side of the scale, as your contribution to helping counterbalance the legal opinion of an actual law professor on the other side. Are you even trying to make a convincing argument, or are you just playing to a gallery?

 

[Bomb#20]

This from July 2018 says the case was dismissed after Kansas amended the law (state to pay plaintiff's costs):

https://www.timesofisrael.com/lawsu...i-bds-law-state-to-pay-plaintiffs-legal-fees/

"In March, in an attempt to salvage the law, the Kansas legislature narrowed the scope of the legislation, making it apply only to businesses and not individuals, and made it apply only to contracts higher than $100,000."

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/measures/documents/summary_hb_2409_2017.pdf

Anti-Israel Boycott; HB 2409
HB 2409 prohibits the State from entering into a contract with any individual or company
engaged in a boycott of Israel. The definition of “boycott” includes the refusal to engage in
commercial relations with persons and entities engaged in business with Israel and Israeli
controlled territories. The State must require written certification from all individuals and
companies with which it enters into contracts for services, supplies, information technology, or
construction that the individual or company is not engaged in a boycott of Israel. The bill
prohibits the State from adopting a procurement, investment, or other policy that effectively
requires or induces the boycott of the government of Israel or a person conducting business in
Israel. The Secretary of Administration has the authority to waive application of this prohibition if
the Secretary determines the prohibition is not practicable.​

No way was that one ever going to be upheld.