02-09-2005, 07:22 PM #1
This is annoying... Trump and NBC are private organizations.
Let them sue, trump should be able to hire and fire anyone he want's too....
Does the NBA Discriminate against quadraplegics?
Does the Military Discriminate Quadraplegics?
Does the NFL? NBL? Police stations? Sometimes descriminations is not such a bad thing. I don't mind the military discriminating against the weaker and dummer of the candidates that fight on the front line, and I doubt very highly that the guy in the trench next to them is glad that the guy next to him was scrutenized on his abililty to do the nessesary pushups, and pass the other physical and metal tests. Sometimes descrimination is nessesary. And for a show like the apprentice they are looking for a certain person, and so far the quadraplegic has not yet fit that mold. Until a quadraplegic fits what they are looking for, they should not be forced to hire anyone they do not want to hire!
Disabled Attorney Says 'Apprentice' Biased
Feb 9, 1:52 PM (ET)
By JIM SUHR
ST. LOUIS (AP) - A quadriplegic lawyer has sued producers of NBC's "The Apprentice," saying the tryouts for the popular reality show discriminate by requiring that would-be contestants be in excellent physical health.
In his federal lawsuit filed here last week, James Schottel Jr. wants a preliminary injunction that would force the show's producers to drop such requirements that exclude him and "others similarly situated" from being considered for the show.
The St. Louis attorney, who has applied to try out for the show when auditions are to be staged here Friday, seeks no monetary damages. He said the lawsuit only is meant to correct a perceived Americans with Disabilities Act violation by Trump Productions LLC and Mark Burnett Productions LLC.
"This isn't a frivolous lawsuit," Schottel said Wednesday. "Since the ADA was enacted, there have been great steps in new buildings and accessibility by (the disabled). But I rarely see a person with a disability on anything" on television.
Schottel, who has not seen disabled people on "The Apprentice" show that bills itself as a "15-week job interview," said he's concerned that the application process either blocks or discourages them. He cited a form warning applicants that "you must be in excellent physical and mental health" and "meet all physical and psychological requirements."
Still, Schottel said he has no evidence anyone disabled has been rejected or discouraged by the show, now in its third season and pitting nine college graduates against an equal number of high school grads in what NBC bills as "book smarts against street smarts."
The series' prize is a job with a Donald Trump enterprise.
A spokeswoman for the Trump Organization in New York directed questions to Los Angeles-based Mark Burnett Productions, which did not return messages.
A spokesman for NBC, which was not named in the lawsuit, said several applicants in wheelchairs were interviewed during a casting call last week in New York.
Schottel called himself a fan of the real-estate mogul Trump, who he doesn't believe condones discrimination and "may leave all this more to the production company."
Schottel, a St. Louis native, attended Baker University in Baldwin City, Kan., where he kicked a 44-yard field goal in a playoff football game his freshman year. He said he sustained a spinal cord injury during a 1991 fraternity hazing in which he said no alcohol was involved. He graduated from Saint Louis University's law school in 1999.
The latest season of "The Apprentice," which premiered last month, offers some distinctions in the 18 cast members compared with previous seasons. There are more older candidates (the oldest is 41), more candidates with children (at least three are parents), more candidates with real estate experience (at least six) and no Ivy League graduates.
02-09-2005, 07:25 PM #2
what a sack of bs...in the same level as the mcdonalds lawsuit
02-09-2005, 07:28 PM #3
I think it's high time quadriplegics have an opportunity to play in major league sports. I mean all of us guys that were all state and collegiate level athletes that couldn't make it.......I mean those quads could live the dream we never had!~
So I say lets let them put those shriveled appendages to good use hitting homeruns or kicking field goals.
Note to the pc peeps.......... fuk off it's just a joke.
02-09-2005, 07:29 PM #4Originally Posted by 1victor
Great point, I bet that would sell a lot of tix to the games!
02-09-2005, 07:40 PM #5
Look at it this way take NASCAR ,you could strap them in and put a brick on the accelerator, granted they would hit the wall in the first turn but there would be some insane wrecks!
02-09-2005, 07:42 PM #6Originally Posted by 1victor
02-09-2005, 07:46 PM #7
No......... it's offensive........... it's supposed to be........ PC people SUCK!!!!!!!!!!! We are not all equal it is a hard thing for some to understand but everyone and everything has it's place in the food chain. Do I feel badly for paralyzed people? AbsolutEly! But not guys like that wingnut. He is probably a thorn in the side to everyone he comes into contact with. ACCOMODATE ME I AM HANDICAPPED OR I WILL SUE YOU!!!
02-09-2005, 07:51 PM #8
PC meaning politically correct btw.
02-09-2005, 07:58 PM #9Originally Posted by 1victor
Almost brings a tear to my eye bro...
all I can say is
ur the man!
02-09-2005, 08:00 PM #10
02-09-2005, 11:53 PM #11
What do you name a dog with no legs??
Cigarette.......'cause you take him for a drag
02-10-2005, 07:13 AM #12
02-10-2005, 08:57 AM #13Originally Posted by Badgerman
02-10-2005, 09:57 AM #14
that's what makes it so GOOD
02-10-2005, 10:29 AM #15
Actually.....don't call him anything.......he can't come to you anyway....hehehe
02-10-2005, 10:31 AM #16
What's good news to a guy who just had the wrong leg cut off???
A two for one sale on artificial limbs!
02-10-2005, 10:39 AM #17
I agree that we cannot be seen as equal in some areas, but I am all for equal opportunity. That said, a quad cannot play in the NFL...it could not happen. That said, there is no reason why a quad could not be on the apprentice. I think the show is just going to have to show that they have interviewed some handicap persons (i.e. given them opportunity) and then show that they were just not suitable candidates, not because of their handicap, but because of other factors...the same that would make say myself an unsuitable candidate. I am all for equal opportunity, but sometimes when you do not get your way it has nothing to do with colour of skin, handicaps, or anything other than just not being acceptable.
02-10-2005, 10:48 AM #18
We could like just not watch the show.......and then it would go away......and we could all be happy!
02-10-2005, 11:34 AM #19
This is what's wrong if someone doesn't want a quad on their payroll it should be their business. This country is f'ed up.
02-10-2005, 12:45 PM #20AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
Originally Posted by BigJames
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
incorrect - their handicap makes them unsuitable - do you think that a blind person would be entrusted to look over an event or Trumps properties - or that someone in a wheelchair would be able to run around his golf courses or do the mad dashing about that his people need to? possibly someone who was deaf but uncommonly good at reading lips and could still communicate like a champ might squeek through - whole point is that even with all arms legs, eyes and all - its very hard to get on that show much less finish
02-12-2005, 12:47 PM #21Originally Posted by Jdawg50
Are you surprised? I didn't think so . . . but let me 'splain . . .
Employers with more than 15 employees have to comply with anti-discrimination regulations, so, if Trump had only a few employees, he actually could hire and fire anyone he wanted.
But suppose you're running a big corporation like Wal-Mart or General Motors or the Hilton Hotel chain. If word gets out that you don't hire minorities, well, first off, those minorities aren't gonna patronize your business, and you lose the profit you would have made from those sales. If GM discriminates but Chrysler doesn't, then Chrysler is gonna have a better chance to hire the best and brightest minds of minority people, giving them a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
So, there are good economic reasons for a company NOT to discriminate.
Looking at things from another view . . . suppose I'm running a barbershop, should I be allowed to post a sign in my front window that says, "Whites Only"? IMHO, no. Should I be allowed to post a sign that says, "Able-Bodied people only"? IMHO, no, and for the same reasons. If I'm offering my services to the general public, then I should make them available to everyone. But, if my shop doesn't accommodate wheelchairs, then I may as well post a sign in the front window that says, "No Wheelchairs."
IMHO, I think that every disabled citizen in the US has the same right (ethically speaking) to be served by any business just the same as ethnic or religious minorities. The ADA law makes this a requirement . . .
Now, as far as employment goes . . .
The ADA law requires employers to make "reasonable accommodation" for folks with disabilities, and allows them to turn away applicants who are otherwise unqualified for the position.
So, if a job in a warehouse full of 50 lb bags of concrete required applicants to be able to lift 50 lbs, then of course, a quadriplegic wouldn't qualify, and could be turned away. But if the warehouse manager hired a guy who couldn't lift 50 lbs, then other folks who did meet the employment qualifications discovered this, then they'd have cause to sue.
Anyway, it's all about fairness, political equality, and equal opportunity.
Lots of wheelchair bound people have sucessfully managed companies -- geez, Roosevelt was stuck in a wheelchair, and he got us through WWII. Stephen Hawkings isn't much to look at, quad that he is, but he's a brilliant theoretical physicist, well-qualified for lots of positions . . .
So, if Trump discriminates against job applicants, he's gotta have a good reason to do so. If the job position was for a construction foreman, then of course, then making every job site accessible for him would be unreasonable. But if it's for the sort of position that he usually has on his TV show, then no, there's no reason to suppose that a quad in a good wheelchair couldn't get around to do what he's got to do.
Trump could set other requirements, though, like having a PhD in a particular discipline, or a number of years of experience in management, or whatever. But it's got to apply to ALL applicants, and has to have something to do with the job (can't have a requirement to be under 100 lbs for a job in telephone sales, or require 20-20 eyesight for a job training dogs).
So, since all US citizens really shouldn't be barred from applying for a job they are otherwise qualified for, there's really no reason, objectively speaking anyway, for turning away a paraplegic from a managerial position if they're capable of doing a kick-ass job. He is, though, doing a TV show, and as such, he's really looking for "entertainers," so if he advertises the position as a "TV Entertainer," well, then a paraplegic would have to qualify for that, as would all the other applicants, which would be another ball of wax entirely . . .
In short, no one should be turned away from anything only because they are disabled, but rather, on the basis of how well they can do the job.
02-12-2005, 12:59 PM #22Originally Posted by Badgerman
02-12-2005, 02:56 PM #23AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
for once Tock and I agree - and you can also bet that if Trump in any way thought that the job could best be performed by a person with no legs arms and deaf, blind and speachless - you can be sure he would hire him or her in a heartbeat - it is and should always be about who can get the job done the best
02-12-2005, 03:33 PM #24
Qualified or not, it is absurd and wrong to make a company hire anyone for any reason at all. I have always hated this policy. Someone (the gov't) telling businesses how to spend their resources. I think a company should be able to decline to hire the most suited and qualified person on the planet for something as stupid as not liking ther hair color, or having poor taste in clothing.
02-12-2005, 11:05 PM #25Originally Posted by 1victor
If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had never passed, most businesses would still be segregated, women would still be stuck doing drudge work like typing, and only WASP men would be running the country -- not because of merit, but because of managerial stupidity and prejudice.
Blacks were screwed for hundreds of years, and after slavery was abolished, white people intimidated and took unfair advantage of blacks for decades afterward. Racial intermarriage was made illegal, laws were passed to tax anyone who voted (poll tax) so that poor people (blacks) couldn't afford to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
One could say that employers have the right to do whatever they want with their $$$ and say they should be free to discriminate against whoever they want.
One could also say that citizens of the USA have the right to fully participate in everyday American life, to participate in the economic affairs conducted in this country (which are, btw, protected by the military which is, in part, funded by each citizen's tax $$$) in whatever capacity they are able so that they can take responsibility for their own livlihood.
Does a private employer engaged in government protected and regulated public commerce have the right to interfere with a black fellow's ability to earn a living? IMHO, no.
And if a person is turned away from a job "for something as stupid as not liking ther hair color, or having poor taste in clothing," well, that's the sort of thing a racist employer might do to hide the actual reason for his action.
02-13-2005, 12:27 PM #26
guys five years ago some dudes in wheelchaire sued the canadian army because he couldnt join!
02-13-2005, 12:52 PM #27
Well, the way our legal system is set in the US, anyone could file a lawsuit for anything --someone could sue me for being ugly, or for eating tunafish on Friday in a school zone, or for wearing white after Labor Day. That's when the judge does his job and tosses is out for being "without merit." As long as the party bringing the suit pays for all the court costs, and the person who was importuned by the frivolus suit could in turn sue for having his time wasted, I don't see why the public should be concerned about this.
The alternative is to let politicians establish rules and regulations governing what sort or disputes can and cannot be brought to court, which could end up denying some folks their day in court for a bona fide problem.
Now . . . as far as a disabled person bringing a suit against the military for not allowing them to enlist, so long as the rules for deciding who can and who can't enlist are based on the legitimate needs of the organization and those rules are applied equally to everyone, such as requiring everyone to be within height/weight guidelines, be able to do X number of situps, pullups, run a mile under 6 minutes, and be physically able to effectively fight and get around on a battlefield, and do all that BECAUSE the task a typical soldier is hired to do requires this sort of physical agility, then a judge could toss the suit out of court for being without merit. And so long as the party filing the frivolous suit has to pay the expenses incurred by the judge, his support staff, and the expenses of the military lawyers, then the public isn't inconvienced, taxpayers bear no financial burden, and the idiot pays for his stupidity.
Basically, I'm all for anyone being free to sue anyone for anything, anytime, anywhere, but being responsible for compensating other folks he jacks with should he judge rule the case as being without merit.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)