EEOC Brings Class Action Against Prime for Sex Discrimination

I hope your kidding!

 

But that's the point I have been making all along. Now what I would like to know is why are you so seemingly opposed to prime,or any other company having the right to protect themselves?

I suppose you don't think they should have the right to protect their own interest.

And on what basis do you conclude that the primary motive for prime's policy was to put up barriers to women's advancement and not to protect themselves(prime) ?

How do you know conclusively that prime had this woman waiting because she had "indoor plumbing",and not because there was a lack of female trainers,perhaps made worse by females qualified to train,but who refuse to train?

And the woman who sued prime when she was harassed by her male trainer, did prime put barriers in her way when they allowed cross gender training?
And in addition,when they sent her with a male trainer,in their cross gender training days, her having 'indoor plumbing' was not an issue then was it?

And what of women who are currently driving for prime? Where are/were the barriers placed in their way?

As I see it
(1) Prime used to allow cross gender training
(2) A woman alleged she was sexually harassed
(3) She sued prime
(4) Prime stopped cross gender training in an attempt to protect ITSELF from such future lawsuits
(5) Some people think that prime should not have the right to so protect itself
(6) Since there is a shortage of female trainers,made worse by the refusal of females to be trainers,naturally female trainees would have a wait for a female trainer.
(7) Some people ,presumably reading the minds of the principals of prime, state conclusively that primes motive is not to protect itself,but actually some sinister attempt to hinder the progress of women.
Is any of the above wrong? If so, please correct me.

As for whining,it's not prime i would accuse of whining.

And as far as throwing up barriers to employment and advancement, people with felony conviction,or multiple serious traffic violations on their driving record, or no CDL should file a class action suit against trucking companies who don't hire such people.

And what you seem to be missing,despite all the "extraneous details" that some of us have thrown in,is that Prime should have a right to put reasonable policy in place to protect its own interest,by PREVENTING certain things from happening. And I don't see anything unreasonable in
preventing cross gender training,in an attempt to prevent actual incidents,or false allegations of sexual harassment.

 

Cross-gender training was suspended after a 2-week serial rape in a training truck. As far as I know, the dirtbag will be in prison for another 10 years.

 

That's more than a bit condescending,especially since as you said in post #177,that this was a discussion among adults,which has remained relatively civil.

(1) Why do you suggest that it had to be a man who instituted this policy? Did it ever occur to you that it could have been a woman?
Or is it that because you think it was a stupid decision it is more likely to have been made by a man ?

(2) And even if it was a decision made by a man, who are you to make a judgement as to the character of the person who made such a decision?
You seem to be insinuating that "he" cannot control himself,and thinks that all men are the same.

Prime does have women working in management don't they? Or do they put up "hinderances" to women in the office as well?

 

I haven't heard where that rape victim sued Prime. Apparently, the issue was dealt with to the satisfaction of the victim.

Every training company has a shortage of female trainers and, as far as I know, none forces anyone to train, the trainers and students have a choice of whether the will train or be trained by a member of the opposite sex. None of them are facing a lawsuit being brought by EEOC. Every employee at these companies is educated on what sexual harassment is, the reporting procedure, what will happen if it is found to have happened and what will happen if it is found to be a false report.

Isn't it funny that these other companies aren't being taken to task by EEOC?

And if this policy was such a grand idea, why did Prime vacate it?

A company is allowed to protect itself, but not by committing a crime. Discrimination is a crime.

 

Come to think of it, when I was there, all of the top management positions were filled by men. I have no idea why that is.

 

Be fair. Were you told specifically that you could not drive a tanker because you were a woman,or because you were not trained to operate in the tanker division,and they did not have a suitable trainer for you?

Yes I know,there were no female trainers and you are female, but is not allowing you to do tanker because appropriate trainer was not available the same thing as not allowing you to do tanker just because you were a woman? I see a difference.

They can't exactly force females to train now can they?

Do you have reason to believe that if they did have a female trainer,that they would find some other reason to prevent you from doing tanker,just because you are a woman?

Sorry for making the highlighted section so large. I couldnt edit it to a smaller font size

 

And isn't it funny that with all the other training companies having cross gender training,that this woman didn't go to one of them instead of wasting her time with prime.

 

It's because we can pee while doing a one handed hand stand! Women cant!