Jeremy Roenick Sues NBC Sports for Anti-Straight Discrimination in Firing

[Tondas]

Really, Jeremy?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jeremy-roenick-sues-nbc-sports-224414977.html

[DarthEbriate]

7 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Really, Jeremy?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jeremy-roenick-sues-nbc-sports-224414977.html

Huh. I doubt that that's a valid suit.

[Tondas]

1 minute ago, DarthEbriate said:

Huh. I doubt that that's a valid suit.

Another millionaire that is desperate to try to stay relevant.

[Andrew Amerk]

This is hilarious and he may actually have a point. 

[SABRES 0311]

Stick it to the man. Fight the power. Roenick lives matter. 

Edited July 18, 2020 by SABRES 0311

[kas23]

Dude’s a scum based on those comments. But he does have a point about Weir and why he was terminated. This issue may come down to what exactly was documented in his termination. Was it due to him speaking openly about his sexual desires or was it due to classless behavior?

 

One last thing. I remember when I was in middle school, I traded a Jeremy Roenick rookie card for an Ed Belfour rookie card. Bad trade?

Edited July 18, 2020 by kas23

[Pimlach]

I can’t stand Roenick and never understood how he could get that job to begin with.  Then I see Millbury out there and that is even worse. 

That said it would be nice to see someone stick it to NBC, their news is the most sensational of the major networks.  They are unwatchable.  

Edited July 19, 2020 by Pimlach

[SABRES 0311]

3 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I can’t stand Roenick and never understood how he could get that job to begin with.  They I see Millbury out there and that is even worse. 

That said it would be nice to see someone stick it to NBC, their news is the most sensational of the major networks.  They are unwatchable.  

Roenick was more personable. Milbury is just sour.

[Palm Trees And Taxes]

1 hour ago, Andrew Amerk said:

This is hilarious and he may actually have a point. 

He actually does.

[Eleven]

43 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I can’t stand Roenick and never understood how he could get that job to begin with.  They I see Millbury out there and that is even worse. 

That said it would be nice to see someone stick it to NBC, their news is the most sensational of the major networks.  They are unwatchable.  

I like our local NBC affiliate's news team (WGRZ, Ch. 2), mostly because I have a couple of friends on camera there.

I won't watch any of the Big Three network news broadcasts (nor any of the Big Three cable news broadcasts, for that matter).

Roenick was overrated as a player and remained overrated on camera.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

I can’t stand Roenick and never understood how he could get that job to begin with.  They I see Millbury out there and that is even worse. 

That said it would be nice to see someone stick it to NBC, their news is the most sensational of the major networks.  They are unwatchable.  

Major networks being CBS, nbc, abc?

[Andrew Amerk]

1 hour ago, Ruff Around The Edges said:

He actually does.

That’s what makes the headline of this hilarious.
 

He actually does have a point.  

[Huckleberry]

If those Weir comments are true, then yeah double standards and he'll probably win. ?

[Andrew Amerk]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

If those Weir comments are true, then yeah double standards and he'll probably win. ?

Apparently the Weir comments have been scrubbed pretty good off the interwebs. 

[IKnowPhysics]

***** him.

He publicly stated he wanted to ***** his coworkers.  That's a firing.  And if he's not fired, Tappen and Sharp could hold NBC liable for allowing sexual harassment and fostering a hostile work environment.

If the comments Weir made were inappropriate, NBC should address them and act accordingly.

If (and it's a big if) Roenick's assertion is truthful that "his supervisor responded that Weir 'is gay and can say whatever,'" then that is also inappropriate and NBC should adress that person and act accordingly.

This lawsuit is a fine example of a Trumpist snowflake crying oppression when they're held accountable for saying horrible *****.

[Cascade Youth]

His goal is not to win the lawsuit (he won’t), it’s to embarrass NBC and his former co-workers.  Dude is such a tool, one of the biggest hosers ever.

[JohnC]

5 hours ago, IKnowPhysics said:

***** him.

He publicly stated he wanted to ***** his coworkers.  That's a firing.  And if he's not fired, Tappen and Sharp could hold NBC liable for allowing sexual harassment and fostering a hostile work environment.

If the comments Weir made were inappropriate, NBC should address them and act accordingly.

If (and it's a big if) Roenick's assertion is truthful that "his supervisor responded that Weir 'is gay and can say whatever,'" then that is also inappropriate and NBC should adress that person and act accordingly.

This lawsuit is a fine example of a Trumpist snowflake crying oppression when they're held accountable for saying horrible *****.

Sometimes when you read what a person said on TV or radio it appears to be outrageous and unacceptable. But what is often left out is the where the comment was made such as on a shock jock radio show where the environment is freewheeling and juvenile. When something is said in a restaurant/bar scenario among friends (including both sexes) the bantering can get real loose to the point of being raunchy with no one being offended and taking the comments as being  demeaning. My understanding is that Roenick and his wife were friends with the people he commented on. My point here is that although he said something that he shouldn't have on the airways the magnitude of the indiscretion is raised by the intensity of this swirling social media world. 

[carpandean]

28 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

Straight isn't a legally protected class. He doesn't.

'Sex', which has been interpreted as including sexual orientation and gender identity, is the protected class.

Title VII: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

While generally enacted because of mistreatment of minority groups within these classes, the law does not specify that one must be a member of a minority group to claim wrongful treatment based on a protected class.  It may be harder for someone in the majority class to show that they have been discriminated against, but as far as I know (not an attorney), they can still successfully claim discrimination.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

This guy is a joke and can't be taken seriously ever.

And I agree completely with you @IKnowPhysics.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Sometimes when you read what a person said on TV or radio it appears to be outrageous and unacceptable. But what is often left out is the where the comment was made such as on a shock jock radio show where the environment is freewheeling and juvenile. When something is said in a restaurant/bar scenario among friends (including both sexes) the bantering can get real loose to the point of being raunchy with no one being offended and taking the comments as being  demeaning. My understanding is that Roenick and his wife were friends with the people he commented on. My point here is that although he said something that he shouldn't have on the airways the magnitude of the indiscretion is raised by the intensity of this swirling social media world. 

I'm comfortable with the firing regardless of whether he knew these people well or not.  If he is predisposed to say THAT on the air, I wouldn't want him on the air for any program I am responsible for.  He's demonstrated that he is a liability in front of a microphone now.

[Cascade Youth]

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

I'm comfortable with the firing regardless of whether he knew these people well or not.  If he is predisposed to say THAT on the air, I wouldn't want him on the air for any program I am responsible for.  He's demonstrated that he is a liability in front of a microphone now.

Between that and the lawsuit, his media career is over.  Nobody is going to hire a guy who says reckless crap in clear violation of their media policy and then sues his employer for enforcing its policy against him.  Right or wrong, he’s unhirable.

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, carpandean said:

'Sex', which has been interpreted as including sexual orientation and gender identity, is the protected class.

Title VII: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

While generally enacted because of mistreatment of minority groups within these classes, the law does not specify that one must be a member of a minority group to claim wrongful treatment based on a protected class.  It may be harder for someone in the majority class to show that they have been discriminated against, but as far as I know (not an attorney), they can still successfully claim discrimination.

I think this is essentially correct. Many state laws expressly cover sexual orientation as a protected class. And the SCOTUS recently held that “sex” in Title VII encompasses sexual orientation. Now, SCOTUS did that relative to those who are gay or transgender, but arguably the rationale would extend to sexual orientation discrimination more generally.

[LTS]

I think many people are missing the point here.  It matters not whether you are comfortable or not with his firing.  it's easy to say that the comments he made were inappropriate and the results adequate.

The issue is based in the double-standard that someone who is gay was able to make similar comments (allegedly) and did not receive the same discipline.

I also expect this to end up in the politics club in 3..2..

[Weave]

Just now, LTS said:

I think many people are missing the point here.  It matters not whether you are comfortable or not with his firing.  it's easy to say that the comments he made were inappropriate and the results adequate.

The issue is based in the double-standard that someone who is gay was able to make similar comments (allegedly) and did not receive the same discipline.

I also expect this to end up in the politics club in 3..2..

I got that.  Physics covered it pretty well so I didn’t see the need to expand upon it.

[JohnC]

23 minutes ago, Weave said:

I'm comfortable with the firing regardless of whether he knew these people well or not.  If he is predisposed to say THAT on the air, I wouldn't want him on the air for any program I am responsible for.  He's demonstrated that he is a liability in front of a microphone now.

People who are in front of the mike a lot are inevitably going to say stupid stuff. Even people who are not "predisposed" (as you state) are at times going to say something foolish and offensive.  If he has a history of saying inappropriate things and has been warned about it by his bosses and ignores the warnings then there are consequences. If he is such a liability in front of the mike then don't hire him or renew his contract. What intensifies the "offensive " comments are that they are then constantly being re-looped by other outlets. 

What I find troubling is this quick resorting to boycott in a variety of forms with someone who affiliates with someone you don't like or says something that you disagree with. If you don't like what is being said then turn the dial and find another outlet. The quick draw resorting to "cancelling" out is becoming too prevalent to the extent that it is stifling communication.