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

[Weave]

11 minutes ago, JohnC said:

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. 

Stating that you want to have sex with a co-worker (or whatever the exact detail was) isn't garden variety stupid stuff though.  That is termination material every time.  It's self evident, really. And has nothing to do with "the world we live in today".  It violates every workplace norm, and every broadcast norm outside of shock jock broadcasting.

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

Stating that you want to have sex with a co-worker (or whatever the exact detail was) isn't garden variety stupid stuff though.  That is termination material every time.  It's self evident, really. And has nothing to do with "the world we live in today".  It violates every workplace norm, and every broadcast norm outside of shock jock broadcasting.

He got carried away with his stupid locker room bantering. No one is saying that it was appropriate. Unless there was an accumulation of stupid comments and he was dismissing the warnings of his bosses I thought this situation could have been dealt with in a less punitive manner. We simply disagree on this issue.

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

Straight isn't a legally protected class.

It is as of last month.  Boystock v. Clayton County.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

He got carried away with his stupid locker room bantering. No one is saying that it was appropriate. Unless there was an accumulation of stupid comments and he was dismissing the warnings of his bosses I thought this situation could have been dealt with in a less punitive manner. We simply disagree on this issue.

He went well beyond that and not in a locker room.  Your take is not a good one, IMHO.

This guy has a well established reputation as being a first rate ass.

[Weave]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

He got carried away with his stupid locker room bantering. No one is saying that it was appropriate. Unless there was an accumulation of stupid comments and he was dismissing the warnings of his bosses I thought this situation could have been dealt with in a less punitive manner. We simply disagree on this issue.

How many media figures do you know that get to accumulate stupid comments before removal?  The only ones I can think of are the ones who's stock and trade are controversy.  Any mainstrean media outlet personality is expected to not put their foot in their mouth, and when they do the reaction is pretty consistent across media outlets.  They don't get trusted to not do it again.

[Stoner]

35 minutes ago, Eleven said:

It is as of last month.  Boystock v. Clayton County.

It was a slash.

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

It was a slash.

Took me a minute, but well done.

[That Aud Smell]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

It is as of last month.  Boystock v. Clayton County.

You read it that way? I haven’t read it myself. I think that’s what it must mean.

It’s an interesting wrinkle, though, to say that a straight male was discriminated against because he said something that a homosexual male could say with impunity. 
 

Having typed it, that now is more clear: The theory is that, owing to his sexual orientation, he was terminated for something that a homosexual male would have been permitted to say. Interesting.

IIRC, there’s (or was) a case involving an allegedly transphobic heterosexual woman in which she claimed she was terminated owing to her sexual orientation. I forget any details, and can’t look it up right now.

Edited: But now I’m less sure. Maybe I need to read the decision.

Edited July 18, 2020 by That Aud Smell

[Eleven]

45 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

You read it that way? I haven’t read it myself. I think that’s what it must mean.

It’s an interesting wrinkle, though, to say that a straight male was discriminated against because he said something that a homosexual male could say with impunity. 
 

Having typed it, that now is more clear: The theory is that, owing to his sexual orientation, he was terminated for something that a homosexual male would have been permitted to say. Interesting.

IIRC, there’s (or was) a case involving an allegedly transphobic heterosexual woman in which she claimed she was terminated owing to her sexual orientation. I forget any details, and can’t look it up right now.

Edited: But now I’m less sure. Maybe I need to read the decision.

I do read it that way.  The phrase "protected class" does not appear in the opinion, but it's the only reasonable reading.  Sexual orientation is now a protected class at the federal level, and of course that applies to all sexual orientations, including straight.

 

Roenick's problem is going to be that what Weir said doesn't even come close to the level of what Roenick said.  

 

Well, I mean his problem with the case.  Obviously, he has plenty of other problems in general.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Eleven

[That Aud Smell]

To follow on: I’m starting to read the opinion. Isn’t Gorsuch saying that an employer who takes adverse action against an employee because they’re gay or transgender is doing so because that person has exhibited behavior or attributes that are deemed unacceptable because that person is not of the opposite sex?

If so, that’s not what happens when a straight guy gets dinged for something a gay guy would not. Nah?

[Eleven]

13 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

To follow on: I’m starting to read the opinion. Isn’t Gorsuch saying that an employer who takes adverse action against an employee because they’re gay or transgender is doing so because that person has exhibited behavior or attributes that are deemed unacceptable because that person is not of the opposite sex?

If so, that’s not what happens when a straight guy gets dinged for something a gay guy would not. Nah?

Sure, but it follows that an employer who takes adverse action against an employee because they're straight is doing so because that person has exhibited behavior or attributes that are deemed unacceptable because [the target of the employee's behavior] IS of the opposite sex.

 

As we know, most of the civil rights canon originated as a way to protect women, people of color, and religious minorities.  That doesn't mean it's ok for your employer to fire you because you're a white male.  We know it isn't.  I think the same standard is going to apply here.

 

Unfortunately for Mr. Roenick, his behavior justifies his firing while Weir's may or may not.  

 

EDIT:  I just re-read the article and I think his complaint might be under NYS law and not federal law anyway.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Eleven

[That Aud Smell]

Put another way: Gorsuch seems to suggest that, under Title VII, the test is more or less: if the same adverse employment action would *not* have been taken if the claimant were of the opposite sex (e.g., for wearing a dress, for marrying a man), well, then, you have sex discrimination.

But that’s not what a straight guy claims when he says “but gay guys get to say it.”

In order for this to work, the rule would need to be: If the same adverse employment action would *not* have been taken if the claimant were of the same sex and a different sexual orientation (for calling a female coworker a sassy bitch (?)), well, then, you have sex(ual orientation) discrimination.

[That Aud Smell]

3 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Sure, but it follows that an employer who takes adverse action against an employee because they're straight is doing so because that person has exhibited behavior or attributes that are deemed unacceptable because [the target of the employee's behavior] IS of the opposite sex.

 

As we know, most of the civil rights canon originated as a way to protect women, people of color, and religious minorities.  That doesn't mean it's ok for your employer to fire you because you're a white male.  We know it isn't.  I think the same standard is going to apply here.

 

Unfortunately for Mr. Roenick, his behavior justifies his firing while Weir's may or may not.  

 

EDIT:  I just re-read the article and I think his complaint might be under NYS law and not federal law anyway.

I don’t (yet) read Gorsuch’s opinion as extending to or even considering the matter of the sex of an alleged victim.

It’s focused on the claimant being treated differently because they’re a man, and not a woman.

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

He went well beyond that and not in a locker room.  Your take is not a good one, IMHO.

This guy has a well established reputation as being a first rate ass.

Why do you think he was hired in the first place? Because he is a genteel and sophisticated personality? Roenick's edgy personality when he was a player and behind the mike were well established and known by everyone in the hockey world. That's why he was hired! He wasn't hired to give powder puff commentary. He was on the set to be edgy. Did he cross the line? Of course he did. So what! If his transgressions were a common occurrence where he was constantly being spanked by his bosses then I have no problem with his ignominious departure. If it wasn't a pattern of behavior then in my opinion he shouldn't have been fired.    

[Eleven]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

Why do you think he was hired in the first place? Because he is a genteel and sophisticated personality? Roenick's edgy personality when he was a player and behind the mike were well established and known by everyone in the hockey world. That's why he was hired! He wasn't hired to give powder puff commentary. He was on the set to be edgy. Did he cross the line? Of course he did. So what! If his transgressions were a common occurrence where he was constantly being spanked by his bosses then I have no problem with his ignominious departure. If it wasn't a pattern of behavior then in my opinion he shouldn't have been fired.    

Why he was hired to begin with (I tend to think you are correct) has nothing to do with why he was fired (which absolutely must have happened given his comments on Tappen and Sharp).  Can you even think about NBC's liability if they had allowed him to coexist with Tappen?

Just because she's good-looking doesn't mean you're allowed to broadcast what you'd like to do with her.

He's an ass.  He acted like one.  He finally got his.  Let's see what comes out of the NYS court system on this; I'm betting that it isn't sympathetic to poor Jeremy.

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Why he was hired to begin with (I tend to think you are correct) has nothing to do with why he was fired (which absolutely must have happened given his comments on Tappen and Sharp).  Can you even think about NBC's liability if they had allowed him to coexist with Tappen?

Just because she's good-looking doesn't mean you're allowed to broadcast what you'd like to do with her.

He's an ass.  He acted like one.  He finally got his.  Let's see what comes out of the NYS court system on this; I'm betting that it isn't sympathetic to poor Jeremy.

He clearly made inappropriate comments on a radio or podcast show. That's not an issue that I'm disputing. After the storm about his comments about Tappen he pointed out that he knew her beyond the studio. He pointed out that he and his wife have gone out to dinner with Tappen. So there was an acquaintance with him and his wife. Roenick is a loud and rambunctious person. It's safe to say that he was hired not to be a clinical analyst on the set but to be a lively personality who was there to be provocative. 

The show in which Roenick made his comments was the type of show where the decorum boundaries get stretched. That's the context in which he made those comments. He was trying to be funny and it came back to bite him. I don't believe that he was trying to be malicious or deliberately hurt anyone. It was a poor attempt at humor in a loose setting. 

It's my opinion that he clearly he used poor judgment in making those comments. If he would have been suspended I would have considered that a more reasonable disciplinary response by the company.  

[Eleven]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

He clearly made inappropriate comments on a radio or podcast show. That's not an issue that I'm disputing. After the storm about his comments about Tappen he pointed out that he knew her beyond the studio. He pointed out that he and his wife have gone out to dinner with Tappen. So there was an acquaintance with him and his wife. Roenick is a loud and rambunctious person. It's safe to say that he was hired not to be a clinical analyst on the set but to be a lively personality who was there to be provocative. 

The show in which Roenick made his comments was the type of show where the decorum boundaries get stretched. That's the context in which he made those comments. He was trying to be funny and it came back to bite him. I don't believe that he was trying to be malicious or deliberately hurt anyone. It was a poor attempt at humor in a loose setting. 

It's my opinion that he clearly he used poor judgment in making those comments. If he would have been suspended I would have considered that a more reasonable disciplinary response by the company.  

Let's assume, for a minute, that your last sentence is right.  Problem is, he doesn't bring much value to the company so he's not worth preserving.

Now, let's get into reality.  Does NBC want to be sued by Tappen, who has a case, or Roenick, who probably does not?  This is an easy decision for NBC.  

[Doohicksie]

20 hours ago, kas23 said:

I traded a Jeremy Roenick rookie card for an Ed Belfour rookie card. Bad trade?

Both sides lost.

[Doohicksie]

32 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The show in which Roenick made his comments was the type of show where the decorum boundaries get stretched. That's the context in which he made those comments. He was trying to be funny and it came back to bite him. I don't believe that he was trying to be malicious or deliberately hurt anyone. It was a poor attempt at humor in a loose setting.

...and he stretched the boundaries beyond the breaking point.  It's a public forum, and he said very unseemly things about a coworker.  The company where I work does regular ethics and diversity training.  What Roenick said is so far beyond the standard of what's acceptable that it's not even worth discussion.  Like any major corporation I'm sure NBC has similar training.  The interesting thing about the training we get is that it is often based on situations that actually occurred in our company... I wonder if NBC will feature this scenario in future training sessions.

32 minutes ago, JohnC said:

It's my opinion that he clearly he used poor judgment in making those comments. If he would have been suspended I would have considered that a more reasonable disciplinary response by the company.

Nope.  There's no way the network would want the sexual tension (real or perceived) on their broadcast.  This is a sports show, not a rom com.  These are real people, not characters.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Let's assume, for a minute, that your last sentence is right.  Problem is, he doesn't bring much value to the company so he's not worth preserving.

Now, let's get into reality.  Does NBC want to be sued by Tappen, who has a case, or Roenick, who probably does not?  This is an easy decision for NBC.  

What has she said and done after the comments that indicates she wants to legally pursue the matter? 

[stinky finger]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

...and he stretched the boundaries beyond the breaking point.  It's a public forum, and he said very unseemly things about a coworker.  The company where I work does regular ethics and diversity training.  What Roenick said is so far beyond the standard of what's acceptable that it's not even worth discussion.  Like any major corporation I'm sure NBC has similar training.  The interesting thing about the training we get is that it is often based on situations that actually occurred in our company... I wonder if NBC will feature this scenario in future training sessions.

Nope.  There's no way the network would want the sexual tension (real or perceived) on their broadcast.  This is a sports show, not a rom com.  These are real people, not characters.

Perhaps they could get Matt Lauer to spearhead this training? 

Afterall, he was the face of the franchise.

 

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Let's assume, for a minute, that your last sentence is right.  Problem is, he doesn't bring much value to the company so he's not worth preserving.

Now, let's get into reality.  Does NBC want to be sued by Tappen, who has a case, or Roenick, who probably does not?  This is an easy decision for NBC.  

Seems to me the problem is who hired JR. 

[Eleven]

33 minutes ago, Leaf Blower said:

Seems to me the problem is who hired JR. 

And this explains the generational difference, doesn't it?  We went from "who shot JR" to "who hired JR."

[PromoTheRobot]

When will a white hetrosexual male get a break in this country?

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

18 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

When will a white hetrosexual male get a break in this country?

When PromoTheRobot meets the Wizard of Oz,lol.

[SwampD]

40 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

When will a white hetrosexual male get a break in this country?

2016.