Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!greenber From: greenber@acf4.UUCP Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: abetting discrimination Message-ID: <11300013@acf4.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Nov-84 10:39:00 EST Article-I.D.: acf4.11300013 Posted: Tue Nov 27 10:39:00 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 07:41:02 EST References: <1164@bbncca.UUCP> Organization: New York University Lines: 36 Nf-ID: #R:bbncca:-116400:acf4:11300013:000:1813 Nf-From: acf4!greenber Nov 27 10:39:00 1984 /***** acf4:net.motss / rrizzo@bbncca / 1:57 pm Nov 26, 1984*/ rrizzo@bbncca asks (in response to Julia's question regarding legal dismissal of an employee due to "gayness")--> > Is this actually true? How can clients do this, especially once the ink's > dry on the contract, unless it's explicitly written in? Yes...And I quote (Ahem...): 6. SUBCONTRACTOR agrees to provide personnel to CLIENT that will adhere to CLIENT work times, work rules, and work standards. In the event that SUBCONTRACTOR personnel do not adhere to CLIENT work times, work rules, and work standards, in the sole opinion of CLIENT, SUBCONTRACTOR agrees to replace such personnel at his own expense or, at the option of CLIENT, to terminate any and all agreements, both written and implied. Such termination shall be considered in effect upon payment by CLIENT to SUBCONTRACTOR for services already rendered by SUBCONTRACTOR personnel. This is the contract that was signed by me and the client. Certainly such clauses could be fought.....who shall volunteer the funds for the court fight, and the lost income??? > It may be naivete or ignorance on my part, but I doubt that a contract or > even the "chain of command" in a company positively empowers clients or > superiors in the ways Julia Harper & Ross Greenberg blithely assume they > do. You're right....it is naivete and ignorance on your part...I assume you are not self-employed??? > ...the word "legally" in the quote above is a red herring. NOPE!! The word legal is defined as : "permitted by law| of or pertaining to the law|established or authorized by law|recognized or enforced by law" Since the client didn't break any law (as of date), then legally is the correct word to use.... Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----