Contractor’s racist abuse caught on video — but his company won’t fire him because ‘Trump’s president’: lawsuit

[phands]

I'm sure the usual suspects will find a way to defend this as not racist at all...

A complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that a New York contractor refused to fire his son despite the fact that he was caught on camera hurling racist abuse at employees.

The New York Daily News reports that the EEOC complaint alleges that Kenneth Kasper, a co-owner of the company Mid County Mechanical, brushed off former employee Rafael Galan’s complaints about being subjected to racist abuse at the hands of his son, supervisor Steven Kasper.


“What do you expect?” Kasper asked Galan, according to the complaint. “Now that Trump’s President, it’s a white backlash. We’re taking America back.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/co...o-company-wont-fire-trumps-president-lawsuit/

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm sure the usual suspects will find a way to defend this as not racist at all...

A complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that a New York contractor refused to fire his son despite the fact that he was caught on camera hurling racist abuse at employees.

The New York Daily News reports that the EEOC complaint alleges that Kenneth Kasper, a co-owner of the company Mid County Mechanical, brushed off former employee Rafael Galan’s complaints about being subjected to racist abuse at the hands of his son, supervisor Steven Kasper.


“What do you expect?” Kasper asked Galan, according to the complaint. “Now that Trump’s President, it’s a white backlash. We’re taking America back.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/co...o-company-wont-fire-trumps-president-lawsuit/

Not sure what you are looking for here. Are you saying the government should force the father to fire his son? Or are you just saying that racist assholes exist and get motivated to play identity politics when others play identity politics?

We've been making that latter point for a while now. Insist on identity politics frameworks, and you are bound to evoke some white identity politics abuses.

 

[laughing dog]

The notion that bigoted assholes are prompted by the identity politics of others is astonishing. From the article, this bigoted asshole is using the bigotry of the US President to defend his son's bigoted comments an actions.

 

[Elixir]

The notion that bigoted assholes are prompted by the identity politics of others is astonishing. From the article, this bigoted asshole is using the bigotry of the US President to defend his son's bigoted comments an actions.

That would be noteworthy, except ... Cheato.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I remain curious to see if anyone here argues that he should be forced to fire his son.

 

[Elixir]

I remain curious to see if anyone here argues that he should be forced to fire his son.

He should be forced to fire his own son.
By his own conscience.

 

[untermensche]

What it must be like to be so ignorant you think you are somehow "getting America back".

It used to be only severe brain damage that made people this stupid.

 

[Jarhyn]

What it must be like to be so ignorant you think you are somehow "getting America back".

It used to be only severe brain damage that made people this stupid.

I would pose that it IS brain damage, just damage caused by spending too much time in low-information memetic echo chambers such as Facebook and 4Chan. A whole generation of kids got so fucking wrapped up in being "edgy" with racist humor that it sunk in and stuck.

And then there's the Facebook side, which was just the cesspool where all those memes eventually ended up after a bit of filtration

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I remain curious to see if anyone here argues that he should be forced to fire his son.

The EEOC cannot force him to fire his son, but they can, and should, impose sanctions on the company. The right to work in a workplace free of bigotry and sexual harassment is settled law.

I wonder if you think an employee should be forced to submit to bigotry in order to earn a paycheck?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Given his response he should be forced to fire himself.

 

[Underseer]

I'm sure the usual suspects will find a way to defend this as not racist at all...

A complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that a New York contractor refused to fire his son despite the fact that he was caught on camera hurling racist abuse at employees.

The New York Daily News reports that the EEOC complaint alleges that Kenneth Kasper, a co-owner of the company Mid County Mechanical, brushed off former employee Rafael Galan’s complaints about being subjected to racist abuse at the hands of his son, supervisor Steven Kasper.


“What do you expect?” Kasper asked Galan, according to the complaint. “Now that Trump’s President, it’s a white backlash. We’re taking America back.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/co...o-company-wont-fire-trumps-president-lawsuit/

Not sure what you are looking for here. Are you saying the government should force the father to fire his son? Or are you just saying that racist assholes exist and get motivated to play identity politics when others play identity politics?

We've been making that latter point for a while now. Insist on identity politics frameworks, and you are bound to evoke some white identity politics abuses.

So racists would stop being racist if only we stopped complaining about racism? Gosh, that sounds awfully similar to arguments made by German moderates during the rise of the Nazi party.

Your argument is idiotic, but I recently had a similar argument with an ostensibly liberal Canadian around here.

I don't know why people think this argument is worth taking seriously. Just kidding. Of course I know why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias

If racism benefits you, then leaving racism in place benefits you, therefore it is in your interest to get angry at people who argue against racism or (the horrors) actually want to do something about it.

 

[Opoponax]

I remain curious to see if anyone here argues that he should be forced to fire his son.

One of the relatively few circumstances where Constitutional protections apply to private business is in the case of a 14th Amendment violation of the equal protection clause. Under the equal protection clause (and whatever statute is applicable), a worker for a private business can bring a claim against his or her employer for racial discrimination. This is different from e.g. First Amendment protections which only apply to businesses very closely associated with the government. But even then, that's still a tough case to make.

Anyway, the questions you essentially pose are what damages are appropriate, how to quantify damages, and what remedy is appropriate in the given circumstance.

If the article is accurate, the son is likely guilty of assault, possibly battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. For these, no Constitutional protections are required to bring suit. That is, the Equal Protection Clause need not be invoked for those causes of action because state law will be applicable.

If the article is accurate, the worker will have damages claims under the 14AM simply based on the fact that he was discriminated against. That is, the violation of a fundamental Constitutional right = damages in and of itself and is a federal question issue. What form/remedy those damages will take could be equitable (e.g. injunction), legal (monetary), or both.

The equitable remedy may indeed be to remove the son from the company; or it could be to put him in a position where he has no contact with employees. He may be forced to attend certain classes for racial sensitivity, etc. Under Whatever statute, there are likely multiple equitable remedies (but I'm not looking them up--that's way too time consuming).

So as you can see, it may indeed be appropriate to remove the son from the company for at least some period of time.

There may be fines as well.

The employee may also be able to get legal (monetary) damages for the tortious acts (assault etc.), and again, he may be able to get legal damages for being discriminated against.

The government takes racial discrimination very seriously due to the nation's past and ongoing problems with it. Even resident aliens under most circumstances have the same stalwart protections against racial discrimination that citizens born in the U.S. do.

 

[Opoponax]

The EEOC cannot force him to fire his son...

You probably know more about this than I do. I don't really know employment law or the specifics of the EEOC. But I think it's reasonable under the circumstances that the assault in conjunction with the equal protection violation would justify removal of the son from the company. That is, if the son poses not only a threat to the worker's Constitutional rights, but also to his physical safety, that removal may be appropriate.

His father isn't going to do the sensible thing, so it seems like the court would have to.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So racists would stop being racist if only we stopped complaining about racism?

No, of course not.

 

[bilby]

The EEOC cannot force him to fire his son...

You probably know more about this than I do. I don't really know employment law or the specifics of the EEOC. But I think it's reasonable under the circumstances that the assault in conjunction with the equal protection violation would justify removal of the son from the company. That is, if the son poses not only a threat to the worker's Constitutional rights, but also to his physical safety, that removal may be appropriate.

His father isn't going to do the sensible thing, so it seems like the court would have to.

If the son persists in his behaviour, then the father may not be able to be forced to fire him, but he certainly faces a series of escalating fines and sanctions against his company by the courts if he does not, which seems to amount to much the same thing. He is required at the very least to take steps to prevent any repeat offending on the part of any employee, regardless of whether that employee is also his son.

Typically employers would fire someone who is costing their business money in fines that could easily be avoided by such firing. But if they don't (for whatever reason) then they expose the business to more fines - and ultimately to bankruptcy when the fines and/or compensation payments to the victims exceed the ability of the business to pay them. At which point, every employee is out of work. Including the son that he was trying to protect.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Let's hope that lots of people learn the lessons of the past at take to yelp and google reviews for Mid County Mechanical of New York. This is a good way to affect businesses like this when the 'system' otherwise fails.

- - - Updated - - -

I remain curious to see if anyone here argues that he should be forced to fire his son.

He should be forced to fire his own son.
By his own conscience.

I'm trying to figure out why being related to 'the boss' should or would make any difference in an employment situation. If I had someone related to me and also working for me, I'd be inclined to hold them to higher standards, not lower, but it's nice to know you find that objectionable, JP.