SD teen allegedly forced to wear 'gaytard' label

[Hum]

A 16-year-old Yankton boy has filed a discrimination complaint against Taco John's International for an incident that took place while he was working for a store in the southeast South Dakota city.

The young man also has set up a web site to draw attention to the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered teens and to force punishment for the manager who he says demeaned him.

Tyler Brandt says he was forced by the restaurant's night manager to wear a name tag that read "gaytard" during a shift June 23.

Brandt, who is openly gay, says he wore the name tag because he feared losing his job, and that he was berated with the homosexual slur in front of customers and co-workers when he asked if he could take it off.

Brant resigned the following day.

He filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission this week with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota. It alleges that Taco John's of Yankton and Taco John's International violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Brandt said he hopes his actions draw attention to the issue of workplace bullying.

 

more

[macoman]

That's definitely a violation of the employee to have that sign and felt humiliated. I totally agreed that the employer should be punishable.

[HawkMan]

This is really bad if it happened as described, however we must remember we're only reading one side of the story here, form a person who also appears to have some serious attention needs, and a story that doesn't match up.

 

He feared losing his job, he resigned the next day.

He's making all these webpages to bring attention to the issue and fighting for LGBT(and whatever other letters they have added on lately, seriously whatever you want to label yourself, it's a sub label of one of those, you don't need a letter for every sub group in your overall group, just saying) rights. But while doing all that, he couldn't stay at his job and fight for his right there. which would have been much more useful than rage quitting and making a bunch of webpages.

 

 

whatever happened there was probably not right, but the way he's handling it isn't the right way either. 

[macrosslover]

Sue the manager personally,  I don't see how the company is liable.  It's only so far you should hold a company liable for the actions of their employees, when the employee is clearly violating established work place rules and is acting on his own regard.

[scumdogmillionaire]

 

Brandt, who is openly gay, says he wore the name tag because he feared losing his job

 

Brant resigned the following day.

 

:huh:

 

He probably would have been better off getting fired for not wearing it.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

:huh:

 

He probably would have been better off getting fired for not wearing it.

 

he would not have had the chance to create all this websites and complain...

i am sure he got a a friend to coming and video tape his wearing it, for evidence. 

if he just refused. he would not have had a chance to make a campaign out of it.

 

 

yeah, that part of him wearing it because he did not want to lose a job is bullcrap!

 

if he was that timid to blindly accept it, he would have either stayed at the job, or, if it was too much, just quit and seeked psychological help

he clearly did it on purpose.

 

 

though, i don't really blame him.  he is working for an idiot, that will make you wear something like that! 

[ZeroFearX]

Sue the manager personally,  I don't see how the company is liable.  It's only so far you should hold a company liable for the actions of their employees, when the employee is clearly violating established work place rules and is acting on his own regard.

 

The manager represented the company by his word and action.

He his the voice and image of the company for that specific store.

 

Every action and decision he makes on his job duty, it is on the behalf of the company.

[HawkMan]

The manager represented the company by his word and action.

He his the voice and image of the company for that specific store.

 

Every action and decision he makes on his job duty, it is on the behalf of the company.

 

And the company an fire him for misrepresenting them if they where told about this properly instead of an all out internet hate campaign. 

[SierraSonic]

Hawkman, I think this way makes more sense, why just accept his bigotry and quit, which is most likely what the boss wanted anyway?

 

If it was made to be a non issue, it would still be an issue, just one that is private not public. I rather have it public, to punish the bigot, than private, to have him suffer alone.

 

Also it is very likely that he was forced into this decision as he started his work day, and after getting off from the humiliation had some time to think it over and responded vocally.

[HawkMan]

I'm sorry, but I thought we stopped putting people in he stockades in the dark ages. I thought the LGBT community wanted to get further out of the dark ages, not back there... maybe I was wrong. 

[TPreston]

I'm surprised nobody has come in here to talk about the Religious Liberty? of the person who assigned the sign to him.

[Shadrack]

Hawkman, I think this way makes more sense, why just accept his bigotry and quit, which is most likely what the boss wanted anyway?

 

If it was made to be a non issue, it would still be an issue, just one that is private not public. I rather have it public, to punish the bigot, than private, to have him suffer alone.

 

Also it is very likely that he was forced into this decision as he started his work day, and after getting off from the humiliation had some time to think it over and responded vocally.

 

This. I think that it is entirely possible that his mood changed about the situation after being harassed and humiliated.

[SierraSonic]

I'm sorry, but I thought we stopped putting people in he stockades in the dark ages. I thought the LGBT community wanted to get further out of the dark ages, not back there... maybe I was wrong. 

So in a sense you are saying this guy who obviously used a position of power to his advantage illegally should have been ignored, and someone innocent should lose their job because they didn't follow the illegal order?

 

or

 

Should the guy have done the cruel requirement of work, and then just lived with more and more constant belittlement?

 

Either way, in 2 of the 3 possible outcomes the good guy loses.

[Shadrack]

I'm sorry, but I thought we stopped putting people in he stockades in the dark ages. I thought the LGBT community wanted to get further out of the dark ages, not back there... maybe I was wrong. 

 

Way to go to the other extreme. Stockades? Dark ages? Are we still having a discussion or just throwing around hyperbole now?

[HawkMan]

So in a sense you are saying this guy who obviously used a position of power to his advantage illegally should have been ignored, and someone innocent should lose their job because they didn't follow the illegal order?

 

or

 

Should the guy have done the cruel requirement of work, and then just lived with more and more constant belittlement?

 

Either way, in 2 of the 3 possible outcomes the good guy loses.

 

OR

 

he shoudl have reported it to his boss and the company and the guy would have been fired for breaking guidelines and abusing subordinates. 

Way to go to the other extreme. Stockades? Dark ages? Are we still having a discussion or just throwing around hyperbole now?

 

He made websites and went all crusades on the guy and the company, that's the modern version of stockades. 

[TPreston]

OR

 

he shoudl have reported it to his boss and the company and the guy would have been fired for breaking guidelines and abusing subordinates. 

 

He made websites and went all crusades on the guy and the company, that's the modern version of stockades. 

The young man also has set up a web site to draw attention to the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered teens and to force punishment for the manager who he says demeaned him.

 

Reality check

 

http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/exporters-of-hate

[macrosslover]

The young man also has set up a web site to draw attention to the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered teens and to force punishment for the manager who he says demeaned him.

companies have internal methods of handling situations like this.  Administrative matters are best handled in private, so that there is no outside influence to force a decision one way or the other, which could be a violation of both persons rights.  If you don't give them a chance to handle it, then how can you blame them for not handling the situation.  I can understand if he did that and they ignored him, then that would be different.

 

However most people aren't so vile that they deserve to be vilified by the internet, which is what is going to happen in this case.

[HawkMan]

The young man also has set up a web site to draw attention to the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered teens and to force punishment for the manager who he says demeaned him.

 

Reality check

 

http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/exporters-of-hate

 

So he put the manager in the gaping stock/stockades instead of handling it properly and professionally. 

 

two wrongs don't make a right. 

 

 

and yes, I know he did, that's what I said. 

[SierraSonic]

companies have internal methods of handling situations like this.  Administrative matters are best handled in private, so that there is no outside influence to force a decision one way or the other, which could be a violation of both persons rights.  If you don't give them a chance to handle it, then how can you blame them for not handling the situation.  I can understand if he did that and they ignored him, then that would be different.

 

However most people aren't so vile that they deserve to be vilified by the internet, which is what is going to happen in this case.

My personal opinion is that he should as he made a public spectacle of his employee, or would have forced him to quit/be fired.

 

My personal experience is that managers and upper management are friends most of the time, and even if they aren't they will back each other up anyway.

[macrosslover]

My personal opinion is that he should as he made a public spectacle of his employee, or would have forced him to quit/be fired.

 

My personal experience is that managers and upper management are friends most of the time, and even if they aren't they will back each other up anyway.

depends on where you work and how close their relationship is.  Usually if they aren't blood related, upper management will threw lower level managers under the bus if there's even the slightest possibility of a lawsuit against them.  Liability to the corporation outweighs whatever friendships they may have.  The dollar rules everything.

[SierraSonic]

depends on where you work and how close their relationship is.  Usually if they aren't blood related, upper management will threw lower level managers under the bus if there's even the slightest possibility of a lawsuit against them.  Liability to the corporation outweighs whatever friendships they may have.  The dollar rules everything.

Exactly, so to cover the business, even if they aren't friends, they will lie and say you are basically a disgruntled ex employee trying to sabotage the franchise/store. I've tried being nice, it only helps them.