Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 14, 2020

In the ruling, Ms [Amy Coney] Barrett said that while she found the use of the word abhorrent, the plaintiff in the case had not made a strong enough case that harassment was occurring. "The n-word is an egregious racial epithet. That said, Smith can't win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert's use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment," she wrote.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Great, now we'll have a Justice on the SC more extreme right than Kananaugh. Conservatives aren't going to like it when we negate her influence on the court. And rightly so, she should never have been nominated. She's an absolute insult to many groups of people in this country. But Republicans are OK with that. Is Tim Scott still willing to confirm her?

#1 | Posted by danni at 2020-10-14 10:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I wonder if Barrett thinks calling an employee the c-word wouldn't make for a hostile or abusive work environment? How about calling someone a k-i-k-e?

#2 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-10-14 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Today, Dem Senators should call ACB the c-word, and the b-word, repeatedly.

Hopefully, by the end of the day, she notice it's hostile.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-14 10:39 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Today, Dem Senators should call ACB the c-word, and the b-word, repeatedly."

If anyone would call someone those names it would be a dem. As illustrated in the nooner.

#4 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-10-14 10:47 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If anyone would call someone those names it would be a dem.

If the shoe fits.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-14 11:15 AM | Reply

" If anyone would call someone those names it would be a dem."

Jesus Christ old man, look at your President!

#6 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-10-14 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If anyone would call someone those names it would be a dem.
POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Don't get her confused with kamaltoe harris.
POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-10-14 11:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Jesus Christ old man, look at your President!
#6 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE"

Who? The one called Fat and orange faced?

#8 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-10-14 11:44 AM | Reply

kamaltoe harris is a looong way from the c word or b word.

#9 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-10-14 11:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

PhesterOBoyle, I realize you don't have a job.

But if you did, and you kept calling one of your co-workers Kamaltoe, don't you think you'd eventually be fired for sexual harassment?

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-14 12:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If I called her the C word, I'd get fired AND arrested.

#11 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-10-14 12:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Say what?
Why would you get arrested for calling a co-worker a c?
What crime is that?

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-14 12:17 PM | Reply

Malicious communication.

#13 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-10-14 12:20 PM | Reply

Say what? Why would you get arrested for calling a co-worker a c? What crime is that? #12 | Posted by snoofy

Malicious communication. #13 | Posted by phesterOBoyle

In the phester's imaginary criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the voices in his head who investigate the make-believe crime; and the other voices in his head who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.
[Dum Dum!]

#14 | Posted by censored at 2020-10-14 06:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 11

It's the same logic as saying that kids will get over CV19 but if Barron gets a cough, the room goes quiet.

#15 | Posted by LesWit at 2020-10-14 06:51 PM | Reply

Go home, PHESTOR.

Your drunk.

#16 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-10-14 08:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

no wonder mao likes this ------.

#17 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2020-10-14 09:44 PM | Reply

...any decent country would kick this well heeled
Karen, out in the hallway on her Lilly White Privileged
@ss...

...but we seemingly no longer live in a decent country...

#18 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-10-15 06:13 AM | Reply

Using the N word is only hostile if you mean it!

Or you are posting on the internet.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-15 12:24 PM | Reply

I have seen Black people at their place of work use that word when speaking to each other like it was nothing.

I think they're stupid but it clearly wasn't upsetting them.

#20 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-15 12:41 PM | Reply

"I have seen Black people at their place of work"

Ok. I will byte.

Where did you see this? I would be surprised if they let a white bread like you see them act naturally like you were not even there.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-15 01:09 PM | Reply

I was in a booth with a high back and they couldn't see me.

I get what you mean though I was pretty surprised when a Black classmate told me another guy at our school that neither of us liked was a "Lazy n_____r".

there was no "a" sound at the end of his sentence.

#22 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-15 01:31 PM | Reply

"I was in a booth with a high back and they couldn't see me."

Maybe they smelled you?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 01:57 PM | Reply

"I have seen Black people at their place of work use that word when speaking to each other like it was nothing."

Yeah, so?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 02:00 PM | Reply

So I can see at least one situation where the use of that word alone does not create a hostile work place.

Then there's people working in recording studios with rappers.

Should they sue every time a rapper uses that word?

#25 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-15 02:12 PM | Reply

#20 "I think they're stupid"

I'm sure you do.

#26 | Posted by qcp at 2020-10-15 02:51 PM | Reply

"So I can see at least one situation where the use of that word alone does not create a hostile work place."

Great job!

So then how would you "demonstrate that Colbert's use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment?"

Or is that impossible for you to do?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 03:01 PM | Reply

"I'm sure you do."

And just what is that supposed to mean?

#28 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-15 03:13 PM | Reply

"I have seen Black people at their place of work use that word when speaking to each other like it was nothing."

Yeah, so?

Are you advocating they be fired for creating a hostile work environment?

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-15 03:30 PM | Reply

"Are you advocating they be fired for creating a hostile work environment?"

No, I'm demonstrating how the Bartett threshold can't be met.

Did you have a way to"demonstrate that Colbert's use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment?"

Didn't think so.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 03:32 PM | Reply

Calling a man a ------ on the job. When you're his boss and white is a hostile workplace. Full Stop. He had a case. Barrett is a lickspittle kneejerk republican. She knows better herself.

#31 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-15 04:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Maybe Clarence Thomas will leave a pube in her Coke, once she's finally confirmed.

We don't get real justice in America, but maybe we can get some Poetic Justice!

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 04:40 PM | Reply

I'm not sure if Coney knows any black people.

But, she should go find one, and call them a n****r to their face.

See the results of her words.

#33 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-15 05:12 PM | Reply

She's got two black kids which makes the ruling even more shocking.

#34 | Posted by qcp at 2020-10-15 06:27 PM | Reply

She's got two black kids

How unfortunate for those kids.

She probably uses them as accessories.

#35 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-15 06:45 PM | Reply

She's got two black kids.

"Hold my beer!"
--Thomas Jefferson

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 06:47 PM | Reply

Hate all you want I'm right that the situation is key and the use of the word on its own doesn't create the situation.

FTR No I don't think white people should use it.

go fish.

#37 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-15 07:09 PM | Reply

"Hate all you want I'm right that the situation is key and the use of the word on its own doesn't create the situation."

You're speaking in the abstract.
This is about a specific ruling.
Address the specifics on this, don't just hide behind generalities.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-15 10:30 PM | Reply

Calling a man a ------ on the job. When you're his boss and white is a hostile workplace. Full Stop. He had a case. Barrett is a lickspittle kneejerk republican. She knows better herself.
#31 | Posted by Effeteposer

You're as bad on facts as Smith was in presenting his case to the trial court, his boss was also black.

Barrett's opinion was but one of four judges that came to the exact same conclusion. Smith did not have a winnable case for lack of evidence. The trial judge ruled against Smith on "summary judgment," meaning Smith did not offer enough evidence to raise a disputed factual issue that a jury could rule on. Barrett and the two other appellate judges that joined her unanimous opinion, agreed with the trial court.

The thread article did a crappy analysis and the AP article it's based on is no better. For a decent analysis try here. lawandcrime.com

Pay particular attention to this passage which call out the erroneous headline.

If you were to read the headlines, you might assume that Judge Barrett ruled that the use of the n-word in the workplace is not objectively abusive. In fact, though, what she said was: "We need not address the objective prong of the analysis, because Smith falters on the subjective prong."

Despite hyperbolic headlines indicating otherwise, Judge Barrett never ruled at all on the objective hostility of the n-word.

#39 | Posted by et_al at 2020-10-15 11:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"No, I'm demonstrating how the Bartett threshold can't be met."

I agree.

Whether or not a workplace is hostile in subjective, and totally based on the perceptions of the individuals within that workplace. If you worked in a workplace where rap music is being played, you're going to hear that word. Some would find that offensive. Others would take offense that some would find it offensive.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-16 12:56 AM | Reply

You are as usual Madbomber full of crap. Calling someone the N word in the work place is about as hostile as you can get. Barrett is a lying piece of s**t. I have absolutely no respect for her. I grew up in a family that was CAtholic and we had 7 kids too but we never descended into the hate filled levels she does. We supported civil rights in the 1960's while that lady still doesn't. Defend her all you want but expansion of the court post Biden win will be the result, we simply can't have this right wing lunatic deciding important things for America, she needs to be made irrelevant.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2020-10-16 12:11 PM | Reply

Um, do any of you actually understand the ramifications of ruling that a single word can mean a hostile workplace? Since you can't legislate by race, you can't rule that the n-word when used by someone who is not black constitutes a bad workplace. So, if she ruled that it could, every time ANYONE said the word, a lawsuit could happen. Then you also set the precedent that one could sue by the use of ANY word they deem bad.

This is why the lack of logic harms the nation.

#42 | Posted by humtake at 2020-10-16 12:12 PM | Reply

"Calling someone the N word in the work place is about as hostile as you can get."

Agreed, but was that the context? Calling someone that word or was the context simply using the word in some other context?

People are deliberately getting worked up over this for partisan reasons.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-16 12:15 PM | Reply

-Despite hyperbolic headlines indicating otherwise, Judge Barrett never ruled at all on the objective hostility of the n-word.

NW

just as well, I don't think this matters anyway.

#44 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-16 12:18 PM | Reply

Do Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh Disagree On Whether The N-Word Creates A Hostile Work Environment?

popehat.substack.com

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-10-16 12:23 PM | Reply

If I called her the C word, I'd get fired AND arrested.

#11 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

No. I think it's what they would find on you and in your car that would get you arrested.

#46 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-10-16 01:11 PM | Reply

While in every day life we would answer that the use of the N word is beyond objectionable, A court of law is not every day life, and is held to different level on how they must rule. Below is from indeed.com and I think it show's how just the use of the word isn't enough FOR A COURT.

What is a hostile work environment?
A hostile work environment is one where an employee's job is made impossible because of the discriminatory words and actions of a supervisor, manager or coworker. Employees at all levels can be responsible for creating a hostile work environment. One example of a hostile work environment is sexual harassment that occurs from one employee to another. In a different example, a hostile work environment occurs when a management team discriminates against an employee to try and make them quit in light of a compliance issue, like a safety concern or injury.


Requirements for a hostile work environment
While the term is sometimes used broadly to describe work behaviors that are not desirable, a true hostile work environment must meet certain criteria as follows:


Work performance is hindered
To establish a hostile work environment an employee must be able to show that the behavior, communications and actions of a coworker or supervisor make it impossible to do their job effectively. The behavior in question has to change any reasonable expectation of what it means to do the job for the employee. A hostile work environment consists of severe, pervasive and unwelcome behavior, words or actions that, if not amended, would make the employee unable to function in their role.


Discrimination occurs
Next, the coworker or supervisor accused of creating a hostile work environment has to display behavior that is consistent with discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and regulations maintained by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) define discrimination. The behavior has to discriminate against someone of a protected class, meaning discrimination that occurs based on gender, race, age, disability or religion.


Effective handling has not occurred
When an employee makes a hostile work environment claim, the reasonable assumption is that the employer has witnessed or been notified of the behavior and has yet to intervene in an effective manner. As a result, the employee is responsible for fostering a hostile work environment.


Burden of proof
Claims of a hostile work environment require regulators to look at the experience of the employee reporting it to ensure it meets the criteria established to make a case. This means the burden of proof falls on the victim of the behavior to establish a viable claim that includes discrimination that is severe, pervasive, unwelcome and that adds additional burdens to the employee's career movement.


People examining the case may ask these questions:

Was the behavior in question unwelcome?
Did the incidents occur multiple times over a time period?
Did the incidents occur against someone whose class is protected?
Was the incident a hostile one?

#47 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2020-10-16 03:57 PM | Reply

Despite hyperbolic headlines indicating otherwise, Judge Barrett never ruled at all on the objective hostility of the n-word.

Are you sure? Did you read this?

"The n-word is an egregious racial epithet. That said, Smith can't win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert's use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment," she wrote.

Now. I'm not sure if you know any black people. And. I admit, I'm assuming you're white.

But, you should test her theory out.

Go up to a black person a call them a n****r.

Report to us how it turns out.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 04:00 PM | Reply

but was that the context? Calling someone that word or was the context simply using the word in some other context?

The context of calling someone a n****r? At the workplace?

You assuming it was a jovial jab?

How out of touch with reality are people who are posting these comments?

People are deliberately getting worked up over this for partisan reasons.
#43 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Understanding the use of the word n****r is unacceptable, especially at the workplace, is partisan?

Trump really has inspired you racists to step out of the shadows.

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 04:08 PM | Reply

People examining the case may ask these questions:

This is in response to calling someone a n****r.

Was the behavior in question unwelcome?
Did the incidents occur multiple times over a time period?
Did the incidents occur against someone whose class is protected?
Was the incident a hostile one?
#47 | POSTED BY KWRX25

Yes. Obviously.

How many times should you be able to call a person a n****r?

Protected class? Who cares. No one should be calling another person a n****r.

Obviously. The act of calling someone a n****r is hostile.

#50 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 04:15 PM | Reply

this thread - conflict of word rights by people sure to eliminate your gun rights.

arrest all free people and build back better

#51 | Posted by mutant at 2020-10-16 04:22 PM | Reply

but then again we/some(((?))) americans can use this word can create a form of entertainment since it be real an sheeit, especisahlly since bad orange nazi russian stole that president job from that hilldawg beeotch -

"""A young ----- got it bad 'cause I'm brown
And not the other color so police think
They have the authority to kill a minority""""

#52 | Posted by mutant at 2020-10-16 04:28 PM | Reply

POSTED BY MUTANT

You're a full blown rhetard.

#53 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 04:34 PM | Reply

Perhaps discussing this issue is too complicated for some who aren't able to understand the case she was presiding over. At least be able to read the links associated with this before coming on here and whining.

The claimant in the case (Smith) failed to meet the requirements needed to establish his case.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, he was probably entitled to something but he didn't present his case.

Judges can't render a decision based on what they think the plaintiff should have presented.

Again, this is adult, big boy stuff.

Not for racebaiting trolls who beg for attention and can't ------- read.

#54 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-16 05:04 PM | Reply

"Despite hyperbolic headlines indicating otherwise, Judge Barrett never ruled at all on the objective hostility of the n-word."

Exactly.

But ------- can't respond to this unless you write a "hyperbolic headline".

see? it works.

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-16 05:08 PM | Reply

Eberly doubles down on not understanding why calling someone a n****r is hostile and abusive.

#56 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 05:30 PM | Reply

#56 Several posters are aware of what you called Boaz. Talk about hostile, abusive and racist. You have no room to comment on anything with regards to the meaning of words considering the ones you used to insult him.

#57 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-10-16 05:36 PM | Reply

Eberly has never understood racism.

Not when his Tea Party friends were maliciously attacking the Obamas for being black.

Not when his Birther buddies where attacking Obama for being black.

And not now when Coney is ignoring the ramifications of calling a black person a n****r at work.

Nope. Eberly doesn't understand racism. Not that he needs to. He's a privileged white guy who's moderately wealthy. Racism will never affect him.

But he'll be the first to tell you you're a racebaiting troll for calling out racists.

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 05:36 PM | Reply

Eberly excoriating people for missing the nuances of an issue is the funniest thing i've seen all week.

Thanks for the laugh!

#59 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-16 05:37 PM | Reply

57

He's a POS. Period.

He can't even figure out that everyone thinks calling someone that word is hostile and abusive.

Nobody, especially Barrett is saying otherwise.

but we don't want to get in the way of his racebaiting ---------.

let him have his fun.....playing with his own ----.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-16 05:38 PM | Reply

#57 | POSTED BY STENCH

Oh look. It's queen racist herself.

Plastering the nooner with every racist thing you could call a black woman.

You hated Michelle Obama. The racist shht you and bayside and PatriotWoman would post in the nooner would have you banned from the DR today.

When it comes to racist ----. You're the queen.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 05:39 PM | Reply

I was never banned because I never made any racist comments about the Obama's. And now back to ignoring you Reza.

#62 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-10-16 05:43 PM | Reply

I love Eberly running to Coney's defense.

He can't even figure out that everyone thinks calling someone that word is hostile and abusive.

Nobody, especially Barrett is saying otherwise.

Coney can't understand why calling a person a n****r is racist.

Neither does Eberly.

But. What's even more fun is. Eberly has me plonked. Yet still likes to write about me.

What a coward. Plonking me and then taking shht about me.

Eberly. You're a racist. Through and through. So is everyone else at the Konservative Kry Klub.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 05:43 PM | Reply

... why calling someone a n****r is hostile and abusive.

In some contexts that may be true. Yet that's not what the case is about. It's about whether use of the word created a hostile work environment that violated law not some moral or ethical boundary. Every judge that considered the matter, four of them, found that Smith failed to subjectively prove that it did.

#64 | Posted by et_al at 2020-10-16 05:44 PM | Reply

I was never banned because I never made any racist comments about the Obama's. RCade wasn't banning posters back then.

And now back to ignoring you Reza.
#62 | POSTED BY STENCH

Promises promises.

By the way, who's Reza?

Or is that your way of calling me a n****r?

Love how --- proves she's a racist.

#65 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 05:46 PM | Reply

64

SSSHHHHH.....

"you're a ------- racist!!!!"

-------------------------------

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-16 05:46 PM | Reply

It's about whether use of the word created a hostile work environment that violated law not some moral or ethical boundary. Every judge that considered the matter, four of them, found that Smith failed to subjectively prove that it did.
#64 | POSTED BY ET_AL

How white of them.

#67 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 05:47 PM | Reply

------------------------------
#66 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Eberly is the racist little *itch who hides behind a plonk and attempts to throw insults.

Cowardly and pathetic.

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 05:49 PM | Reply

Every judge that considered the matter, four of them, found that Smith failed to subjectively prove that it did.
#64 | POSTED BY ET_AL

This is the funniest thing ever.

Black Americans have been getting the short end of the stick for centuries.

But somehow it's all good.

Do you realize how racist your posts read?

Call me a troll or what ever makes you feel better.

But white people not understand the weight of calling a black person a n****r at work is the epitome of racism.

And you're condoning it.

#69 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 05:52 PM | Reply

I'm just having fun, clown.

I'll Replonk you and leave you alone.

While you're wrong and you're not understanding how our legal system works......I'm not in the mood to be hostile towards anyone.

It's been an intense week. I need to chill

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-16 05:57 PM | Reply

clownshack , what did you call Boaz?

you called me a ------, which is also a banned word in many states and social settings.

what gives?

I merely quoted black artists pissed at your kind of oppression

#71 | Posted by mutant at 2020-10-16 07:33 PM | Reply

black americans were getting ahead before modern democrats crapped on them and expected them to vote their way***. ask a black father or co worker. do even work at a job clown?

decades of proof

#72 | Posted by mutant at 2020-10-16 07:38 PM | Reply

clownshack , what did you call Boaz?

Ask him.

you called me a ------,

If the shoe fits...

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-16 07:43 PM | Reply

It's about whether use of the word created a hostile work environment that violated law not some moral or ethical boundary.
#64 | POSTED BY ET_AL

It's no surprise to hear this distinction being made, by the party that finds their moral and ethical values firmly rooted in racism.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-16 08:06 PM | Reply

clown you called him something why not repeat what you said? did you not say it? do you exist as a person? are you a BOT?

#75 | Posted by mutant at 2020-10-16 08:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#75 Don't hold your breath on a response.

#76 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-10-16 09:21 PM | Reply

he's a replyBOT, created in early 2000s to generate site traffic? My site user database pretty much confirms this. Or I have to reprocess the DB to include total loserTrolls. Not sure why Rcade doesn't just do this here

#77 | Posted by mutant at 2020-10-16 09:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort