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: 61



1. 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