Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: abetting discrimination Message-ID: <1181@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 15:43:48 EST Article-I.D.: bbncca.1181 Posted: Fri Nov 30 15:43:48 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 02:46:11 EST References: <11300013@acf4.UUCP> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 611. My question about contract clauses was in response to Julia Harper's GENERAL claim (ie, that contracts typically allow) clients to refuse to use/hire contractor employees on any grounds. Quoting only one contract with no evidence presented that it's typical in the relevant respect is hardly an answer to my question. Ross' sarcasm is point- less & unnecessary. 2. Ross' quoting of his (?) contract is embarassing for the case he's trying to make, & it undercuts his tone of certainty. The clause he quotes concerns "work times, work rules, & work standards"; these are the only grounds on which the client can refuse to use/hire people, although the client acting on such grounds can do so unilaterally ("in the sole opinion of client"). Two points can be made against "the client can do anything he wants" presumption: a. The times, rules & standards are those that apply to "work". This qualification allows the distinction to be made between appropriate & inappropriate (unrelated to work) criteria. Even if you narrowly construe work times/rules/standards as literally those in the client's personnel handbook, whatever they are, this brings up the second point: b. Under at least Massachusetts corporation law, the provisions of a firm's personnel handbook have the force of corporate rules & regulations, or corporate law. It's clear that such rules & regulations cannot conflict with existing laws and remain valid (eg, laws against age & race discirmination). Not to mention the obvious point that an incorporated firm would seek to keep out of its personnel handbook when drawing it up or revising it any provision that actually (or nearly or possibly?) conflicted with existing (or likely future?) state & federal laws. Let's consider gay people: do they lack legal recourse or protection at all from job discrimination short of enacting gay rights legislation? There are laws & gov't agencies in Massachusetts (Dept. of Employment Security & others) that prevent, discourage or move against frivolous, invidious, or irrelevant criteria being used in matters of hiring, firing, benefits, job review, etc. (I'd have to read the statutes to give any more detailed information on this.) My employer BBN includes antidiscrimination clauses in its personnel handbook that explicitly mention only those groups protected under existing lawsd (ie, not gays). Yet BBN officially construes their clauses to include gays and to prohibit INVIDIOUS discrimination of any kind: they sent out a company-wide memo to that effect months ago. Further indication that existing does prohibit anti-gay discrimina- tion at least in some circumstances is a recent court rul- ing in Maasachusetts (Steve Dyer, can you provide details?). I don't know what local conditions & laws are where Ross works, but he does not have the watertight case he thinks. This debate is really getting tedious while not being particularly productive. Yawn........! Ron Rizzo