Without getting into what I really think about all the extra-marital affairs going on in national politics right now, I wanted to bring a snipit from this article to everyone's attention.
Ethics Watchdog Files Complaint Against Ensign Over Affair-Related Activities
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") has filed a complaint against Senator Ensign because the lady he had an affair with and her husband were terminated from their positions in Senator Ensign's campaign organization. CREW thinks the terminations were possibly related to the affair. An affair is certainly no laughing matter, but here is a quote from the article and CREW that made me laugh:
CREW alleges in its complaint that Ensign may have terminated the Hamptons from their staff positions for reasons related to the affair, which began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008.
"If true, the senator likely engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, and Senate Rule 42, which incorporates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Senate employees and prohibits discrimination based on sex," the group said in a press release Wednesday.
Someone needs to tell CREW's law school dropouts that Title VII's "sex" discrimination prohibition refers to gender, not whether one has had sex. And since the lady's husband was fired too, CREW is going to have an uphill battle trying to convince anyone the firings were related to gender.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It has been a while since you were in law school listening to the wild-eyed kook law professors (99%). I think their reasoning would be something like this: he wouldn't have wanted to have an affair with her if she were a man, i.e. he singled her out based on her gender for the affair. Since the affair was part of the reason for the termination and the affair would not have occurred if she were not a woman, it is discrimination based on gender.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult for people with common sense, without an all encompassing agenda, who don’t think that all laws should be twisted to promote our agenda, and who actually think the original purposes and plain text of a statute should regulate its enforcement, to understand such a twisted view of statutory interpretation.