Not Good: A&E Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Letting Phil Robertson Go

[JimBowie1958]

Looks like Phil might own A&E after all this is over. Specifically, A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


That’s what discrimination is. It's law.

Sure. Good story, bro.

lol, more hallway trash.

 

[Shaarona]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

Sorry but you're wrong. He was let go for his religious views on homosexuality.

If he had said.......the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and I believe it is wrong, he would not be having these problems

Saying......what is the deal with gays and ass fucking? Wouldn't they rather have a pussy?

Or comparing it to bestiality

Or saying Jim Crow wasn't so bad

Isn't in the bible

I agree... Robertson was very sloppy.. If his family quits the show, they will have breeched their contract with A/E and they will be sued.

 

[Luissa]

Looks like Phil might own A&E after all this is over. Specifically, A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.





Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]



(a) Employer practices



It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -



(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.





That’s what discrimination is. It's law.

No they didn't. Sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JimBowie1958]

Looks like Phil might own A&E after all this is over. Specifically, A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
That’s what discrimination is. It's law.

No they didn't. Sorry.

Yes, they did, NOT sorry.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sorry but you're wrong. He was let go for his religious views on homosexuality.

If he had said.......the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and I believe it is wrong, he would not be having these problems

Saying......what is the deal with gays and ass fucking? Wouldn't they rather have a pussy?

Or comparing it to bestiality

Or saying Jim Crow wasn't so bad

Isn't in the bible

I agree... Robertson was very sloppy.. If his family quits the show, they will have breeched their contract with A/E and they will be sued.

Lol, Robertson will be an icon of free speech when this is all over, and you will still be a little self-important narcissist pretending to be something other than a sock.

 

[Luissa]

Looks like Phil might own A&E after all this is over. Specifically, A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

That’s what discrimination is. It's law.

No they didn't. Sorry.

Yes, they did, NOT sorry.

How so?
They hired him. They stopped editing certain things when he had a problem with it... They aired them praying every night.
They only suspended him when he said something they viewed as offensive. He would have no case.
Sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mudwhistle]

No they didn't. Sorry.

Yes, they did, NOT sorry.

How so?
They hired him. They stopped editing certain things when he had a problem with it... They aired them praying every night.
They only suspended him when he said something they viewed as offensive. He would have no case.
Sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offensive meaning religious.

They bleeped their dialogue when they weren't even swearing to make them sound like ignorant red-necks.

 

[Luissa]

Yes, they did, NOT sorry.

How so?
They hired him. They stopped editing certain things when he had a problem with it... They aired them praying every night.
They only suspended him when he said something they viewed as offensive. He would have no case.
Sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offensive meaning religious.

They bleeped their dialogue when they weren't even swearing to make them sound like ignorant red-necks.

Not what I was referring to. Phil had a problem with them editing out some of the religious stuff, they listened and stopped. He also stated A&E never asked to not talk about his religion and his son A&E was respectful of their family values. It's in record, they would have no case if they tried to fight it. Which they won't.
The show will continue, both parties are not that stupid. They can't leave with the name and in the end A&E would be stupid to let their number one show go. Look how well it turned out for Two and a Half Men.
Offensive as in the bestiality and Jim Crow comment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[paperview]

Robertson will be an Icon of Idiocrasy.

 

[Kondor3]

Robertson will be an Icon of Idiocrasy.

Sometimes, even an idiot can become the Poster Boy for something much more lofty (such as Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Religious expression or the like) quite accidentally, if he-or-she is wronged, and that 'wrong' becomes widely known, and The People get behind the wronged party, despite his-or-her faults... Public Perception is an odd thing.

And, perhaps, in the end, Public Perception is all that matters.

 

[Pogo]

lol, bullshit, unless it was apart of a set up. These legal beagls don't let random shit happen, dumbass.

I just re-posted the description of how it happened, dumbass.

According to an anonymous source, bullshit.

Actually it's also in the GQ article itself. Just looked it up...

>> Let’s start with the crossbow, because the crossbow is huge. I’m sitting in the passenger seat of a camo-painted ATV, rumbling through the northern Louisiana backwoods with Phil Robertson, founder of the Duck Commander company, patriarch at the heart of A&E’s smash reality hit Duck Dynasty, and my tour guide for the afternoon.

... Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He&#8217;s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there&#8217;s no stopping them from rushing out. <<

Unrelated, but interesting sidebar in the article:
>> Phil On Why He Voted Romney in 2012
&#8220;If I&#8217;m lost at three o&#8217;clock in a major metropolitan area...I ask myself: Where would I rather be trying to walk with my wife and children? One of the guys who&#8217;s running for president is out of Chicago, Illinois, and the other one is from Salt Lake City, Utah. [Editor&#8217;s note: Romney is from Boston, not Salt Lake City.] Where would I rather be turned around at three o&#8217;clock in the morning? I opted for Salt Lake City. I think it would be safer.&#8221; <<

Poster note to editor: Romney is actually from Detroit, where his dad ran American Motors.

There goes that logic.

 

[JoeB131]

I just re-posted the description of how it happened, dumbass.

According to an anonymous source, bullshit.

Actually it's also in the GQ article itself. Just looked it up...

>> Let’s start with the crossbow, because the crossbow is huge. I’m sitting in the passenger seat of a camo-painted ATV, rumbling through the northern Louisiana backwoods with Phil Robertson, founder of the Duck Commander company, patriarch at the heart of A&E’s smash reality hit Duck Dynasty, and my tour guide for the afternoon.

... Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out. <<

Unrelated, but interesting sidebar in the article:
>> Phil On Why He Voted Romney in 2012
“If I’m lost at three o’clock in a major metropolitan area...I ask myself: Where would I rather be trying to walk with my wife and children? One of the guys who’s running for president is out of Chicago, Illinois, and the other one is from Salt Lake City, Utah. [Editor’s note: Romney is from Boston, not Salt Lake City.] Where would I rather be turned around at three o’clock in the morning? I opted for Salt Lake City. I think it would be safer.” <<

Poster note to editor: Romney is actually from Detroit, where his dad ran American Motors.

There goes that logic.

And that's the reason why A&E suspended him.

They know that every racist, homophobic, and misogynistic this clown has ever said is going to come up...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, they did, NOT sorry.

How so?
They hired him. They stopped editing certain things when he had a problem with it... They aired them praying every night.
They only suspended him when he said something they viewed as offensive. He would have no case.
Sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offensive meaning religious.

They bleeped their dialogue when they weren't even swearing to make them sound like ignorant red-necks.

Sustren made the point tonight that if A+E has suspended Phil for a morals clause violation, while still using his image in their show, that would give grounds to suggest that there is in fact no offense, and no moral clause violation, r else they would not have continued to air him in the marathons.

That is interesting to think about.

If someone has truly caused brand damage, then why keep airing his performances?

A jury might see that as an invalidation of the morals clause.

 

[Pogo]

How so?
They hired him. They stopped editing certain things when he had a problem with it... They aired them praying every night.
They only suspended him when he said something they viewed as offensive. He would have no case.
Sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offensive meaning religious.

They bleeped their dialogue when they weren't even swearing to make them sound like ignorant red-necks.

Sustren made the point tonight that if A+E has suspended Phil for a morals clause violation, while still using his image in their show, that would give grounds to suggest that there is in fact no offense, and no moral clause violation, r else they would not have continued to air him in the marathons.

That is interesting to think about.

If someone has truly caused brand damage, then why keep airing his performances?

A jury might see that as an invalidation of the morals clause.

Hard to see how, since a morality clause gives the Producer any remedy it deems appropriate. In this case A&E could have decided that publicly suspending him was enough, and excising his image was beyond what was necessary. Besides, the shows airing or about to air are already in the can.

Greta either didn't think this one through, or more likely considering who she works for, is baiting.

You buyin'?

 

[Katzndogz]

A&E did not violate anything. They didn't fire Robertson for what he IS but what he SAID. IF there is a morality clause, and we can only assume that there is since no one here has seen it, that clause is inapplicable and void as the statements had approval (evidenced by the network's failure to object at the time) from the network.

Wtf does "failure to object at the time" mean?

You're suggesting that A&E not only has a morality clause but has the power to stop other people's magazines from publishing? This makes no sense.

They don't have the power to stop magazines from publishing. They have the power to stop Phil from answering.

A&E knew the questions in advance. There isn't a magazine interview given that the publicist doesn't know what the questions are. The representative could have said you can't ask that question. If the question were asked without notification, the representative could have said "Don't answer that." What do you think these corporate reps are supposed to do? Why are they there? They are supposed to maintain control of the interview.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Robertson will be an Icon of Idiocrasy.

No you Identity ideologues already have that one nailed down, goddess of hystery.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Offensive meaning religious.

They bleeped their dialogue when they weren't even swearing to make them sound like ignorant red-necks.

Sustren made the point tonight that if A+E has suspended Phil for a morals clause violation, while still using his image in their show, that would give grounds to suggest that there is in fact no offense, and no moral clause violation, r else they would not have continued to air him in the marathons.

That is interesting to think about.

If someone has truly caused brand damage, then why keep airing his performances?

A jury might see that as an invalidation of the morals clause.

Hard to see how, since a morality clause gives the Producer any remedy it deems appropriate. In this case A&E could have decided that publicly suspending him was enough, and excising his image was beyond what was necessary. Besides, the shows airing or about to air are already in the can.

Greta either didn't think this one through, or more likely considering who she works for, is baiting.

You buyin'?

I think a jury can always surprise you.

 

[Pogo]

Sustren made the point tonight that if A+E has suspended Phil for a morals clause violation, while still using his image in their show, that would give grounds to suggest that there is in fact no offense, and no moral clause violation, r else they would not have continued to air him in the marathons.

That is interesting to think about.

If someone has truly caused brand damage, then why keep airing his performances?

A jury might see that as an invalidation of the morals clause.

Hard to see how, since a morality clause gives the Producer any remedy it deems appropriate. In this case A&E could have decided that publicly suspending him was enough, and excising his image was beyond what was necessary. Besides, the shows airing or about to air are already in the can.

Greta either didn't think this one through, or more likely considering who she works for, is baiting.

You buyin'?

I think a jury can always surprise you.

Well I think that's why a typical contract language always says, "the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program". Nothing in there says or suggests "if action A is taken then action B must follow". It specifically precludes that.

Plus again, the next season's already in the can. What are they gonna do -- blur out Phil Robertson's face digitally and bleep his audio? That would call more attention to him than doing nothing.

Hell I'm not even a lawyer and I figured this stuff out in ten seconds. A&E has real lawyers. And I guarantee they were consulted not only before this contract was drawn up but also before A&E took its action.

"At its sole discretion". Doesn't leave wiggle room.

 

[Pogo]

A&E did not violate anything. They didn't fire Robertson for what he IS but what he SAID. IF there is a morality clause, and we can only assume that there is since no one here has seen it, that clause is inapplicable and void as the statements had approval (evidenced by the network's failure to object at the time) from the network.

Wtf does "failure to object at the time" mean?

You're suggesting that A&E not only has a morality clause but has the power to stop other people's magazines from publishing? This makes no sense.

They don't have the power to stop magazines from publishing. They have the power to stop Phil from answering.

A&E knew the questions in advance. There isn't a magazine interview given that the publicist doesn't know what the questions are. The representative could have said you can't ask that question. If the question were asked without notification, the representative could have said "Don't answer that." What do you think these corporate reps are supposed to do? Why are they there? They are supposed to maintain control of the interview.

Fair warning -- get your blindfold on and start going because I'm about to destroy this silly drivel AGAIN....

>> Where was Roberton’s PR counsel when the notorious interview happened? The publicist supporting Robertson was missing in action when the infamous anti-gay statements went down.

Which points to one of the most fundamental aspects of PR 101: when a reporter is present, you are always on the record. Always. On. The. Record.

Phil Robertson’s now famous interview with the GQ reporter took place in several phases. The network’s publicist attended, in accordance with A&E’s rigid PR policy, TMZ says—but when Robertson and the reporter hopped onto ATVs, the publicist didn’t come along for the ride. Bingo. Opportunity knocked, the reporter took advantage of the casual setting to ask a personal question, and out popped the offending remarks.

Surely the Duck Dynasty team has received ample media training and counsel over the course of their hugely successful series, and yes, Phil Robertson is a bona fide adult who can and should be held accountable for his statements.

But had his PR counsel stayed by his side, the attentiveness could have changed history in two ways: 1) A reporter is far less likely to ask the out-of-left-field question with PR counsel standing by, and 2) Whether it took a kick in the shin, a dirty look or an outright interruption, PR counsel could have prevented the ad hoc statement from ever happening or could have at least softened the impact with a quick retraction, a follow up remark, or an apology on the spot. As it was, the PR counselor (and the network) learned of the statement in the worst possible way–along with the rest of the world, when the interview went to print.

As a career PR lead, I believe this nuance is critical. As unacceptable as Robertson’s crass remark may have been, could the knowledge that it was a casual remark he made in the midst of a seemingly social ATV ride make a difference? It might. Or it might not. Robertson is entitled to his personal opinions, but if TMZ’s reporting of the circumstance is accurate, it seems clear he never intended to issue the blunt statement for print. (However, an apology is still in order for the rudeness and insensitivity of the comments, even if they were made in a social setting and may possibly have been intended in jest.)

Time will tell. But Robertson (and his PR counsel) have reinforced a basic lesson in public relations in the hardest possible way.

Off-the-cuff remarks are on the record. << -- How Phil Robertson's PR Team Let Him Down

You can come out now, since we've posted this for at least the third time...

 

[HenryBHough]

A&E is safe.

Everybody knows that "religion" bit in the law doesn't apply to Christians.