# Famed B&H Photo hit with discrimination suit



## Derrel

Yes, that's the headline from an article dated November 19,2009 at 
FailedMessiah.com: B & H Photo, Satmar-Owned Mega Electronics Store Sued For Sex Discrimination

Nakisha Cushnie is a B&H cashier who wanted to advance from being a cashier and into sales. She and three other female employees have filed an over-$7-million dollar lawsuit against the retail giant. Cushnie alleges that she, "asked to work in sales and make more money, but was told that no women were allowed in sales for religious reasons."

In articles on the web today, B&H representatives denied her allegations and assured the public that they would look into the allegations.

Two years ago B&H agreed to pay $4.3 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Hispanic employees.

Details are in the above article, as well as on ABC and CBS web sites,each of which have their own articles.


----------



## Josh66

I wonder how this will affect their prices?


----------



## Plato

I don't know what this world is coming to.  We should bring back the separate want-ad sections, "Male Help Wanted" and "Female Help Wanted."


----------



## DennyCrane

Simply an allegation at this point. Right now, the attorneys are going to try the case in the media to get their clients story out there. If the allegations are true, B&H will pay. If the story is not true, B&H will pay. Welcome to a tort-happy country.


----------



## IgsEMT

> I wonder how this will affect their prices?


_My thoughts as well_


----------



## rocdoc

Damn. I don't know what happened, and I hope it gets taken care of properly. But it's worrisome to see them getting into this kind of trouble. They have been the reference retailer for me, and I think others. Hope they stay in business.


----------



## benhasajeep

It's not just a Jewish thing.  The Arabs over here do this as well.  Men are the primary sales people (I'm in Israel right now for work).  It's the way they work (here).  Not sure if B&H is strictly the same.  But they do observe Shabat and do not take sales during it.  And close down on Jewish holidays.  So, they are pretty much by the book.  And unfortunately it runs against laws in the US (if true).

Wonder if they have ANY women sales people?


----------



## camz

IgsEMT said:


> I wonder how this will affect their prices?
> 
> 
> 
> _My thoughts as well_
Click to expand...

 

I guess it's time to switch back to Adorama


----------



## KmH

DennyCrane said:


> Simply an allegation at this point. Right now, the attorneys are going to try the case in the media to get their clients story out there. If the allegations are true, B&H will pay. If the story is not true, B&H will pay. Welcome to a tort-happy country.


+1... I also noticed the article didn't mention that the women were in fact qualified for the sales job(s) the were seeking.

I saw the one women mentioned in the article had been working for B&H for only 8 months. 

I wonder if she sought any other sales jobs before going to work at B&H.

Like Denny says, at this point, either way B&H will have to pay. Which means B&H customers will have to pay.


----------



## usayit

Kinda reminds me about the man who sued Hooters....

BH photo are run by Orthodox Jews (it does matter) which makes them specific targets for this type of lawsuits.

I am more concerned with the $7million.... fine.. if they are found liable... but $7million?  Wow... our society and legal system has really stooped to the bottom.



Get rich quick.. find someone to sue.  It is the American way.


----------



## RyanLilly

This will be an interesting one, as far as constitutional law is concerned, both parties positions seem to be protected by different sections of the constitution. B&H, will argue "free exercise clause" in and the plaintiffs can argue "equal protection clause."
Although, there is probably already precedence on situations like this.

How long do you think It would take to earn $7 million on the sales floor?


----------



## battletone

usayit said:


> Kinda reminds me about the man who sued Hooters....
> 
> BH photo are run by Orthodox Jews (it does matter) which makes them specific targets for this type of lawsuits.
> 
> I am more concerned with the $7million.... fine.. if they are found liable... but $7million?  Wow... our society and legal system has really stooped to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> Get rich quick.. find someone to sue.  It is the American way.


But if they are not hiring any women sales people, then why should they be allowed to discriminate when others are not?  I personally think privately owned businesses should be allowed to do anything they want, but they shouldn't get special treatment unless we reverse all discrimination laws.  This is going to be a clear cut case...if they have women salesman, this lady has no case.  If they don't, then they probably are breaking the law.  It isn't a company with a handful of sales people is it?  Sounds to me like they have enough employees that it would boarder on impossible to not accidentally find a qualified women for the position.



RyanLilly said:


> This will be an interesting one, as far as constitutional law is concerned, both parties positions seem to be protected by different sections of the constitution. B&H, will argue "free exercise clause" in and the plaintiffs can argue "equal protection clause."
> Although, there is probably already precedence on situations like this.
> 
> How long do you think It would take to earn $7 million on the sales floor?



Free exercise is with respect to government instituting a religious mandate.  But for the case in point, business, unlike churches, cannot discriminate employment based on sex, race, or religion.  You cannot have a "Jewish rules business", nor a "Christian rules business".  You can have non-profits, but that is about the extent of it.  Just because the owner is Jewish doesn't mean he gets to run his business based on his religious views, nor should he, unless we allow all businesses to do the same.


----------



## jbylake

O|||||||O said:


> I wonder how this will affect their prices?


 Fire sale?

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## RyanLilly

battletone said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda reminds me about the man who sued Hooters....
> 
> BH photo are run by Orthodox Jews (it does matter) which makes them specific targets for this type of lawsuits.
> 
> I am more concerned with the $7million.... fine.. if they are found liable... but $7million?  Wow... our society and legal system has really stooped to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> Get rich quick.. find someone to sue.  It is the American way.
> 
> 
> 
> But if they are not hiring any women sales people, then why should they be allowed to discriminate when others are not?  I personally think privately owned businesses should be allowed to do anything they want, but they shouldn't get special treatment unless we reverse all discrimination laws.  This is going to be a clear cut case...if they have women salesman, this lady has no case.  If they don't, then they probably are breaking the law.  It isn't a company with a handful of sales people is it?  Sounds to me like they have enough employees that it would boarder on impossible to not accidentally find a qualified women for the position.
> 
> 
> 
> RyanLilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will be an interesting one, as far as constitutional law is concerned, both parties positions seem to be protected by different sections of the constitution. B&H, will argue "free exercise clause" in and the plaintiffs can argue "equal protection clause."
> Although, there is probably already precedence on situations like this.
> 
> How long do you think It would take to earn $7 million on the sales floor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free exercise is with respect to government instituting a religious mandate.  But for the case in point, business, unlike churches, cannot discriminate employment based on sex, race, or religion.  You cannot have a "Jewish rules business", nor a "Christian rules business".  You can have non-profits, but that is about the extent of it.  Just because the owner is Jewish doesn't mean he gets to run his business based on his religious views, nor should he, unless we allow all businesses to do the same.
Click to expand...


Your probably right, but They could argue that the government mandating that they hire women, infringes upon their free exercise of religious practices. Though I wont claim to know anything about their religious beliefs of practices or traditions. I suppose it could be argued and hold up at least as good as the "Twinkie Defense"


----------



## DennyCrane

battletone said:


> Free exercise is with respect to government instituting a religious mandate.  But for the case in point, business, unlike churches, cannot discriminate employment based on sex, race, or religion.  You cannot have a "Jewish rules business", nor a "Christian rules business".  You can have non-profits, but that is about the extent of it.  Just because the owner is Jewish doesn't mean he gets to run his business based on his religious views, nor should he, unless we allow all businesses to do the same.


Not so fast...

Precedent exists with Muslim banks in America offering "Sharia banking services" that are "compatible with Islamic law". 

What a jury will find is anyone's guess. Civil law and Constitutional law are 2 uniquely different animals and this case will boil down to which side can evoke more emotion in the jury towards their client. Let's just hope there's no namby-pamby judge. 

Denny Crane. Coocoo for cocoa puffs.


----------



## usayit

I've been many times... I can't remember a single time I saw a female working the sales counter.  I've seen non-orthodox Jewish men working the counter (especially in the used department upstairs) but never a female.  I've seen a friendly asian guy working the floor directing people and handing out catalogs.  I've seen females at the cashiers.    So I think they won't have a strong case BUT my guess is that they'll probably just settle... but for $7 million?  sounds like diggin for gold.


----------



## DennyCrane

The amount listed in a civil case is arbitrary... and generally a lot higher than the actual amount awarded. It's the jury that will decide the amount. They'll calculate pain and suffering if any, lost wages from a denied opportunity, mental anguish... there's a whole worksheet they'll have to fill out.

And let us not forget that 1/3rd goes to the attorneys.


----------



## schumionbike

Forget about $7 million, if these allegation are true, I wouldn't want to buy anything from B&H. Nobody have a clean record but this is pretty rediculous.


----------



## epp_b

Hands up if anyone else thinks this was planned :er:


----------



## benhasajeep

I don't think it was planned at least by the one cashier already working for them. The others may have been plants after the cashier sought an attorney.

But, I believe that they are discrimanated against. I have been comming to Israel for 7 years now for my compnay. This is how strict MALE operated relegious people run their businesses. Men do the sales and important jobs (Jewish or Arab). Women and other ethinic groups get the low pay service jobs. Even the ethnic Jewish Males get the shaft on job choices. This is not everwhere just the more strict run stores. I have been to 5 camera shops here in Tel Aviv in the last month, 2 of them very large. I have yet to see a woman in them either (as an employee). I have seen shops with women sales but these were all womens clothing stores. But at the electronic stores, hardware store (they have ACE here), Office Depot, and mall shops, all the sales people are males!

I have not been to B+H and can't say one way or another about them. But they are extremely similar in their store practices as strict Jewish establishments. Which tends to make me believe the complaint. Especially after learing of the previous lawsuit. The article does state in one area there were 75 men and 1 woman but does not elaborate on the positions. Even if that 1 woman was in sales with the 75 men they are still in deep dodo. Being a private run business or not. They still have to obide by US law against discrimination! Once a business reaches a certain size it becomes harder to discriminate (at least the way the laws are written). And with 800-900 employees they are definately in the top tier!


----------



## Garbz

schumionbike said:


> Forget about $7 million, if these allegation are true, I wouldn't want to buy anything from B&H. Nobody have a clean record but this is pretty rediculous.



This is said too often till people realise that everyone else often has higher prices, then they go crawling back.

In any case, as far as not having a clean record, this is about the tamest corporate "embarrassment" allegation that I have seen on the net. Want to put your weight behind something then boycot Sony for repeatedly making a business model of screwing their users, not some company because a few people claim they aren't being promoted due to discrimination.


----------



## Jon_Are

> It's not just a Jewish thing.  The Arabs over here do this as well.



Hey! Common ground!

I think you're onto something here. 

Jon


----------



## inTempus

I would say let them have their day in court before you condemn them.  If they lose their case or if they settle out of court to make it go away, then make your mind up as to if you will do business with them or not.  The filing of a civil suit doesn't mean automatic guilt.


----------



## DennyCrane

inTempus said:


> I would say let them have their day in court before you condemn them.  If they lose their case or if they settle out of court to make it go away, then make your mind up as to if you will do business with them or not.  The filing of a civil suit doesn't mean automatic guilt.


+1 Internetz to you.

This is the unwritten "jury tainting" portion of the trial. Get lots of publicity over your lawsuit out there and sway public opinion. Often this alone will  bully a company into offering a settlement.

Which the attorney takes 1/3rd, of course.


----------



## schumionbike

Garbz said:


> schumionbike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about $7 million, if these allegation are true, I wouldn't want to buy anything from B&H. Nobody have a clean record but this is pretty rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is said too often till people realise that everyone else often has higher prices, then they go crawling back.
> 
> In any case, as far as not having a clean record, this is about the tamest corporate "embarrassment" allegation that I have seen on the net. Want to put your weight behind something then boycot Sony for repeatedly making a business model of screwing their users, not some company because a few people claim they aren't being promoted due to discrimination.
Click to expand...

 
well, there are plenty of other online stores that have somewhat similar price.  As far as the discrimination go, it's go much farther than the the people in the complaint, it just that no one esle bother with it.  We'll see how this work out though.


----------



## Josh66

schumionbike said:


> As far as the discrimination go, it's go much farther than the the people in the complaint, it just that no one esle bother with it.



And you know this how?

As has been mentioned already, we don't even know if these people were qualified for the job they applied for.


----------



## jbylake

inTempus said:


> I would say let them have their day in court before you condemn them. If they lose their case or if they settle out of court to make it go away, then make your mind up as to if you will do business with them or not. The filing of a civil suit doesn't mean automatic guilt.


 
Absolutely.  However, I wouldn't condemn them if they settled out of court.
That does not imply guilt.  Lawyers often hire other legal experts who do risk assessment.  They assess the risk of winning or losing the case, and the possible costs involved.  Then they will begin a bargaining process, in other words, determining if it is worth taking your chance in court, or just paying to make it go away.  It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
You can sue a chicken, so that means nothing in itself.

If they go to court and the evidence is overwhelming enough to sway a jury, then they will be "proven" innocent or guilty.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## usayit

If you condemn BH for settling out of court, what does that say about the plaintiff(s)?  

do what is right versus an easy path to early retirement.


----------



## schumionbike

well BH Photo have plenty of money, if they truly  believe that this case have no merit whatsoever, they'll take this issue to the Supreme Court if they have to, just so others won't get on the sue happy wagon.  The interesting thing is they already settled once, we'll see what they do this time.  If they win in court, they won't be bother with these kind of cases again.


----------



## jbylake

schumionbike said:


> well BH Photo have plenty of money, if they truly believe that this case have no merit whatsoever, they'll take this issue to the Supreme Court if they have to, just so others won't get on the sue happy wagon. The interesting thing is they already settled once, we'll see what they do this time. If they win in court, they won't be bother with these kind of cases again.


 
This kind of case will never go to the Supreme Court, unless the Judge does something totally out of left field in the case.  It's a civil rights and discrimination case.  These issues have already have legal precedence, and laws written into legislation.  Only if a court, tries to legislate from the bench, which does happen quite often these day's, could the supreme court even consider hearing it.  Then the issue would be the SC slapping a lower appeals court around for trying to legislate from the bench.

I would be money that this case will either be thrown out of court, or settled out of court.  I doubt it will ever go to trial.  But, stranger things have happened.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## schumionbike

yes, stranger things have happen.  I forgot the name of the case, but there was a case that made it up to the supreme court regarding unconscienability.  The damages was like $500 buck. If I was BH, definitely prove your innocent otherwise this kind of things happen again.


----------



## KmH

schumionbike said:


> well BH Photo have plenty of money,


As they say, money doesn't grow on trees. Where do you think B&H gets all that money?


----------



## Plato

DennyCrane said:


> Precedent exists with Muslim banks in America offering "Sharia banking services" that are "compatible with Islamic law."



I have no clue what constitutes "Sharia banking services."  How do these services conflict with U.S. law if, in fact, they do so?


----------



## DennyCrane

Have you heard of the internet? You can search for things there!


----------



## inTempus

jbylake said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say let them have their day in court before you condemn them. If they lose their case or if they settle out of court to make it go away, then make your mind up as to if you will do business with them or not. The filing of a civil suit doesn't mean automatic guilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  However, I wouldn't condemn them if they settled out of court.
> That does not imply guilt.  Lawyers often hire other legal experts who do risk assessment.  They assess the risk of winning or losing the case, and the possible costs involved.  Then they will begin a bargaining process, in other words, determining if it is worth taking your chance in court, or just paying to make it go away.  It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
> You can sue a chicken, so that means nothing in itself.
> 
> If they go to court and the evidence is overwhelming enough to sway a jury, then they will be "proven" innocent or guilty.
> 
> J.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I don't believe I said that settling out of court was an admission of guilt.  Like you, I said "make it go away".  In other words, let the process of litigation complete before making up your mind as to what you want to do.  The reason?  Because people can sue for anything.  Just because you get sued doesn't mean you've done something wrong.


----------



## CW Jones

another case of 4 people looking for the "easy" way out in life. Suing. 

I'm not taking a side here, but if your unhappy at a job and are "trying to support a family" on $9 an hour maybe its time to look for a new job... Wait that would be work tho, nvm we will just sue......


----------



## DennyCrane

DennyCrane said:


> Have you heard of the internet? You can search for things there!





fnauyasas said:


> I think you should search on google. it is the best tool. Any idea?
> Great info! Really informative. It is helpful for me.
> Yaaa... I am here to share with you. Great info!!!


My sarcasm has caused a spam 'bot to come here. I take responsibility for this.


----------



## CW Jones

hahaah way to go Denny haha


----------



## schumionbike

KmH said:


> schumionbike said:
> 
> 
> 
> well BH Photo have plenty of money,
> 
> 
> 
> As they say, money doesn't grow on trees. Where do you think B&H gets all that money?
Click to expand...

 
Why does that matter?    If they can afford to defend themselves and win, well, that'll be the end of it and no one else would bother suing since they know their chances of wining are slim. If they settle, they probably know that either the case have some merit and the trial might get messy or that their chances of winning this one isn't high.  So yes, if they settle, I'll judge them for that too. That's the only point I was making.  

Ideally you don't make judgemnt as to guilt when people settle as you want to discourage litigation but this is not a slip on a bananna peel case.


----------



## DennyCrane

I agree. Capitulate once and they'll be on you forever. If B&H are in the right, they should fight this one out.


----------



## Joves

Plato said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Precedent exists with Muslim banks in America offering "Sharia banking services" that are "compatible with Islamic law."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no clue what constitutes "Sharia banking services." How do these services conflict with U.S. law if, in fact, they do so?
Click to expand...

 
 Depends on whose version of Shari Law it is. Some read the law the same as the B&H where women are delegated to only certain tasks. So they too could potentially face suits as well. Also the Shari banks would discriminate on basis of religon or lack thereof because, of other religons and atheists being infidels.
 As I look at it, it is B&Hs business and, they should be able to run it as they please.  If they dont want to hire or promote someone it is their business. You either choose to do business with them or you dont.


----------



## Village Idiot

What ever. Famed B&H Photo is still getting my money.


----------



## craig

I remember when I was a young photography student in NYC. We visited B&H's little store in teams because there is safety in numbers. Those guys were really mean. They were not as bad as the guys at the color lab or the bike messengers that I literally ran into. And no one was as mean as the the deli owners up the street from my apartment. You know what; I continued to frequent all of those places during my 9 years in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Often giving them a hard time right back.

The stories I read were void of any real facts, but I hope the truth will come out. Here in the U.S I feel that justice is a game where the criminals are the ones wearing suits and ties. If I have beef with an employer I confront them. If negotiations go south I leave. Of course I can only speak for myself. I am a white man with a family. If I was a Latino women with a family things would of course be slightly different. 

Personally I feel that the case is unjustified. I am sure they were mean and I am sure they do not want women on the sales force. Fact of the matter is it is their business. I want to see peace and equality more then anyone. The work place is not like that. The work place is a dictatorship and that is the way it should be.

Love & Bass


----------



## schumionbike

A lot of bussiness practices in this world are criminalized, and discrimination base on race and gender shouldn't be any different.  Child labors, prostitution, mononoply, drug trade, insider trading, fraud, and so on,.... If this is kind of discrimination is going on in a family, I woudn't care, it might be a disfunctional family that's not anyone business.  A work place is much bigger in scale and affect the public in much more dramatic ways.  Therefore their action is and should be regulate in some ways to that the public is protected.  
Is the damages worth 7 million in this case? probably not, there's always punitive damages though.


----------



## benhasajeep

CW Jones said:


> I'm not taking a side here, but if your unhappy at a job and are "trying to support a family" on $9 an hour maybe its time to look for a new job... Wait that would be work tho, nvm we will just sue......


 

Thats exactialy what the one woman was doing.  Trying to get a better paying position!  And why should she have to look for a job elsewhere if her current company is hiring for higher paying positions???  The fact is women do get discriminated against.  Now it's not as bad as it used to be years ago.  But discrimination is alive and well all over (some situations reverse discrimination is an issue).  And without trying to sound bad.  Certain relegions absolutely forbid women to work certain jobs (and they try to do that in the US, where it is illegal deppending on how you look at the laws).  The only people that know for sure what's going on is the people involved and the store!  There are alot of people that use the legal system to make an easy buck.  And there are alot of people who are just fed up and sue.

Nobody knows, and may not know if they settle out of court and have anti-disclosure rules applied (as they normally do).


----------



## Village Idiot

benhasajeep said:


> CW Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking a side here, but if your unhappy at a job and are "trying to support a family" on $9 an hour maybe its time to look for a new job... Wait that would be work tho, nvm we will just sue......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats exactialy what the one woman was doing. Trying to get a better paying position! And why should she have to look for a job elsewhere if her current company is hiring for higher paying positions??? The fact is women do get discriminated against. Now it's not as bad as it used to be years ago. But discrimination is alive and well all over (some situations reverse discrimination is an issue). And without trying to sound bad. Certain relegions absolutely forbid women to work certain jobs (and they try to do that in the US, where it is illegal deppending on how you look at the laws). The only people that know for sure what's going on is the people involved and the store! There are alot of people that use the legal system to make an easy buck. And there are alot of people who are just fed up and sue.
> 
> Nobody knows, and may not know if they settle out of court and have anti-disclosure rules applied (as they normally do).
Click to expand...

 
There's an oxymoron for a country that was based on people fleeing religious persecution.

You have the freedom to practice any religion you choose, so long as it doesn't interfere with our way of life.


----------



## schumionbike

Village Idiot said:


> There's an oxymoron for a country that was based on people fleeing religious persecution.
> 
> You have the freedom to practice any religion you choose, so long as it doesn't interfere with our way of life.


 

I'm pretty sure our way of life doesn't include gender discrimination.  Once in a while, these values clash.  Freedom of religion v. gender discrimination, interesting case for sure.  Religious freedom didn't include polygamy among other things.


----------



## ANDS!

> I also noticed the article didn't mention that the women were in fact qualified for the sales job(s) the were seeking.



Absolutely meaningless if they were told no because of their gender.  Had they just said "Oh you're not qualified" this wouldn't be an issue and the women wouldn't have a leg to stand on.  That BH has settled before, and there are three women corroborating the story - doesn't look too hot.



> Precedent exists with Muslim banks in America offering "Sharia banking services"



This is no different than kosher foods; you can set up your bank to follow whatever edicts - religious or otherwise - you want.  However it is when you bring those rules over to areas that are protected by federal and state laws (hiring practices, whom you serve) that things become an issue.  I gaurantee not one of those banks would be able to deny service or employment based on Sharia and allowed to continue to do so.


----------



## Garbz

ANDS! said:


> I also noticed the article didn't mention that the women were in fact qualified for the sales job(s) the were seeking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely meaningless if they were told no because of their gender.  Had they just said "Oh you're not qualified" this wouldn't be an issue and the women wouldn't have a leg to stand on.  That BH has settled before, and there are three women corroborating the story - doesn't look too hot.
Click to expand...


Not meaning-less at all in the face of an allegation. It could quite well be that these people were rejected because of lack of qualifications, but the one who passed was male. So the three get together and say let's sue the company but we'll get our stories right first.

In the face of it consider yourself a manager in a heavily discriminating company who only employs males. Do you:
a) Tell the applicants to their face, "Sorry we don't hire your kind" or
b) Say "I'm sorry you're ... errr.... Not .... umm. Qualified, yes, yes. You're not qualified for the job.

Given how incredibly STUPID it would be to tell the truth in this situation, I would bet money that the entire story is fabricated, given that the alternative is that B&H's recruiting staff would be so incredibly stupid that they would probably all end up getting a Darwin award anyway.


----------



## DennyCrane

Look at the NFL- If you own a team, and you want to fire your coach and hire that Superbowl winning guy that's suddenly available... and he's white... you can't. Not until you interview a black guy for the job. It's a written in stone NFL rule. It doesn't matter whether you have already made your decision  before you fire your current coach. It's done in the name of diversity. So, every time a team needs a new coach, they fly in a black guy for an interview. Whether he has a chance or not.

I'm very sure a company as big as B&H knows the rules and the laws. I'd bet there was never anything _provable in court_ saying "women need not apply". Whether it's a real policy or not, you're in business that long and get that big, you interview everyone from within and from the outside.


----------



## Plato

DennyCrane said:


> Look at the NFL- If you own a team, and you want to fire your coach and hire that Superbowl winning guy that's suddenly available... and he's white... you can't. Not until you interview a black guy for the job. It's a written in stone NFL rule. It doesn't matter whether you have already made your decision  before you fire your current coach. It's done in the name of diversity. So, every time a team needs a new coach, they fly in a black guy for an interview. Whether he has a chance or not.
> 
> I'm very sure a company as big as B&H knows the rules and the laws. I'd bet there was never anything _provable in court_ saying "women need not apply". Whether it's a real policy or not, you're in business that long and get that big, you interview everyone from within and from the outside.



Yes, let's look at the NFL.  How many female linebackers are in the NFL?  You're not going to allege that absolutely NONE are qualified?

Why was the Hooter's lawsuit thrown out?  Males wanted to wait on tables and were denied that opportunity.


----------



## schumionbike

there are tests that the court employ for these kind of things.  Something like race is under strict scrutiny (there must be a strong and compelling for the discrimation), economic is rational basis (any rational reason for the discrimination would be enough), and gender is some where in between (known as middle scrutiny).  

Female linebacker in the NFL, heck, even if you use the strict scrutiny standard, it's hard to convince any court that a female would have enough ability to play at that level. As far as male waiter at Hooter, it's obvious from social preference that female would make more desirable waiter at Hooter even if you put it under the strict scrutiny.  In both these cases, there's obviously a strong and compelling reason not to hire them for those particular job. 

Female not qualify for getting a sale job?  it's gonna be damn hard to convince anyone that female aren't able to do the job.  If there are 900 people working at B&H, at not one single female is a sale person, the case does not look good for B&H.


----------



## RyanLilly

Plato said:


> Why was the Hooter's lawsuit thrown out?  Males wanted to wait on tables and were denied that opportunity.



I believe the ruling was basically, that a major part of business, was selling not only food, but sex appeal, and that men could not provide that aspect of the business well enough to satisfy Hooters core demographic of customers who are mostly Heterosexual males.

I really don't thing that B&H is selling sex with cameras, so I doubt that this precedent applies here.


----------



## Plato

schumionbike said:


> Female linebacker in the NFL, heck, even if you use the strict scrutiny standard, it's hard to convince any court that a female would have enough ability to play at that level.



Obviously you haven't seen the women that I've seen. Further, if they can play in the NHL (which they have), there's no reason why they can't play in the NFL.



schumionbike said:


> Female not qualify for getting a sale job? it's gonna be damn hard to convince anyone that female aren't able to do the job.



That depends on who you're trying to convince.


----------



## Plato

RyanLilly said:


> I really don't thing that B&H is selling sex with cameras, so I doubt that this precedent applies here.



It's an established fact that owning a Nikon improves your sex life.


----------



## DennyCrane

Plato said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the NFL- If you own a team, and you want to fire your coach and hire that Superbowl winning guy that's suddenly available... and he's white... you can't. Not until you interview a black guy for the job. It's a written in stone NFL rule. It doesn't matter whether you have already made your decision  before you fire your current coach. It's done in the name of diversity. So, every time a team needs a new coach, they fly in a black guy for an interview. Whether he has a chance or not.
> 
> I'm very sure a company as big as B&H knows the rules and the laws. I'd bet there was never anything _provable in court_ saying "women need not apply". Whether it's a real policy or not, you're in business that long and get that big, you interview everyone from within and from the outside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's look at the NFL.  How many female linebackers are in the NFL?  You're not going to allege that absolutely NONE are qualified?
> 
> Why was the Hooter's lawsuit thrown out?  Males wanted to wait on tables and were denied that opportunity.
Click to expand...

So, you just read the first couple of words in a post and respond? Outstanding.


----------



## schumionbike

Plato said:


> schumionbike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Female linebacker in the NFL, heck, even if you use the strict scrutiny standard, it's hard to convince any court that a female would have enough ability to play at that level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you haven't seen the women that I've seen. Further, if they can play in the NHL (which they have), there's no reason why they can't play in the NFL.
> 
> 
> 
> schumionbike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Female not qualify for getting a sale job? it's gonna be damn hard to convince anyone that female aren't able to do the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends on who you're trying to convince.
Click to expand...

 
I considered myself lucky not to have seen the women you have seen . I guess it's easier to convice you that female can play NFL football but they can't be a sale person in BH Photo.


----------



## schumionbike

RyanLilly said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't thing that B&H is selling sex with cameras, so I doubt that this precedent applies here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haha, there's a an idea.
Click to expand...


----------



## RyanLilly

schumionbike said:


> RyanLilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plato said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't thing that B&H is selling sex with cameras, so I doubt that this precedent applies here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haha, there's a an idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I would buy cameras more often!
Click to expand...


----------



## Plato

DennyCrane said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the NFL- If you own a team, and you want to fire your coach and hire that Superbowl winning guy that's suddenly available... and he's white... you can't. Not until you interview a black guy for the job. It's a written in stone NFL rule. It doesn't matter whether you have already made your decision  before you fire your current coach. It's done in the name of diversity. So, every time a team needs a new coach, they fly in a black guy for an interview. Whether he has a chance or not.
> 
> I'm very sure a company as big as B&H knows the rules and the laws. I'd bet there was never anything _provable in court_ saying "women need not apply". Whether it's a real policy or not, you're in business that long and get that big, you interview everyone from within and from the outside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's look at the NFL.  How many female linebackers are in the NFL?  You're not going to allege that absolutely NONE are qualified?
> 
> Why was the Hooter's lawsuit thrown out?  Males wanted to wait on tables and were denied that opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you just read the first couple of words in a post and respond? Outstanding.
Click to expand...


So you have decreed that we must look at one portion of the NFL and we are not permitted to look at any other portion?

What else are we not permitted to consider?


----------



## DennyCrane

Ehh... forum troll response declined.


----------



## Plato

DennyCrane said:


> Ehh... forum troll response declined.



Of course.  We must see things your way and only your way.


----------



## jbylake

Please Moderator's where are you?  Kill this thread, and let the courts figure it out.....

J.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

Seeing as this thread has gone significantly off topic, I'm going to kill it. Quite why it hasn't been reported before is a mystery to me.


----------

