(no subject)
Jan. 19th, 2009 09:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarzWarning - there may be posty mc.post today. Wandered down to city cafe in the light snow to have coffee. "I'd like to have a giant slice of that devil's food cheesecake. No, wait, that's what I'd like to have - but what I'm going to have is a giant cup of coffee." I feel like I earn that chocolate breakfast at least once a month... Touche barista.
Jazz is a nice music for the shoppe, but murky coffee is much better to my taste. I'm facing the danger that the best coffee on the planet is the first coffee I done drunk.
I hate this case. I loved this case.
When I first read this, it was a no-brainer. Some asshole manager who was found to have engaged in discrimination was then filing an EEO case based on how he was transferred away from his plant based on the AJ's award against the agency because this fool discriminated against someone! It's almost not a claim - you can't claim that you were retaliated against because of … discriminating, that is not a protected activity. However, he has an angle that gets him in the door. The thing is, as I read the case, and as I talked to the other people about the person who was allegedly discriminated against, I find another story that fits these "facts." He is a manager with a poor employee - one who has no qualms about using the EEO process to thwart every effort at treating her as another employee with attendance, performance, conduct, and attitude problems. I re-read her accusations against him - and you know what? When you read her claim, and see his restatement of it, it does sound really stupid. He "glared" at her? Da fuck is a glare worth filing an EEO claim for? The claim that costs the agency an easy 5-10 grand just to investigate. Then you read the results - the man probably did retaliate against her, but in his reality - which might be the truth, or his truth - she was knowingly using the EEO process to fight any attempt at control, and he was the victim of his supervisors jumping at shadows. He has lost money by being transferred, and claims he missed the death of a relative for being far away.
So. Which reality is real, or are both realities real? Are the facts the same, but seen through different perspectives? Are these perspectives theirs for real, or what they are trying to convince the people who can "reward them for their pain," or just the reality that they want to believe in where they are the good guys? Which reality is real?
And when I have problems with my boss' boss, when I fear her eye isn't just treating me like shit but setting me up for action, I contemplate the EEO angle. Most everyone she drove off was male. Does she discriminate, or is she just that way towards everyone? Is she wrong? Is her motivation wrong? Do I use this shield even if it isn't really the case but fits the demographics? If I don't and others wield this shield as a sword - am I ethical or foolish?
Thing is, empathy is a strength and a weakness of mine. When I first get a case, I read it and jump to conclusions. The disabled woman who had to retire on disability made me scream inside - were we wrong? Was this victim abused by the agency I have to represent? Was I going to be a hired gun for the bad guys enabling their prejudice? I _believed_ her story, felt it, cried for her in a way. For who I thought she was, for the story I heard. Only, as I went through the steps, asked the questions, got the information, heard the other sides of the story, talked to the "bad guy" without treating him like the bad guy - I found this story to be full of not-true. As redsteve says "That is not accurate" (I'm not calling you a liar - that's illegal. What I am telling you is that what you are telling me is not accurate). Now I'm finding that her story is not only not true, but that when I point out inaccuracies to her
Note - you don't point out inaccuracies to someone before they are on the witness stand - this is a classic young lawyer mistake. You want to catch them in a lie, but the better way to do that is get the information which proves them dishonest and shove it in their face in front of the judge, or bring out both pieces of sworn testimony that can't be true at the same time and blammo in front of the judge. If you do it before hand, they have weeks or months to a) make up a lie that fits both realities, or b) reneg the less advantageous lie and show artificial remorse for the deception.
I'm finding she quickly changes her story. I think her entire pretense for getting a job with us was not to work, but to use it as a way to get disability retirement checks for life. She got away with it, and is now trying to use the system to score even more cash. When I read her story I believed it, hated it, but it didn't hold up to investigation of the facts.
So this empathy is a strength and a weakness. It's a weakness because as I get emotionally involved in a case, I gain fervor or lose conviction in my work. It's a strength because I 'get it;' I understand how people feel, I predict what they might think about the case, and I can therefore anticipate how they will categorize new facts that enter the picture. Because I believed the sick woman was a victim, I can better show how she's a shyster. Because I believed the manager was an asshole, I can show how he's really a victim. What I won't do is use these techniques to hide the truth. Or at least I hope not to - a great luxury I get at my job is not having to _really_ compromise my morals. When I can show we did wrong, we fix the problem and settle the case. We litigate when we were right. Note - unfortunately we more often settle cases not because we actually did wrong, but lack the information to beat the legal test to win. I think the vast majority of our people are really trying to do the right thing - not just for discrimination issues, but for food safety. They're generally good people.
GOD THIS SNOW IS FUCKING GORGEOUS. So is that long-haired blond guy with wire-spectacles who just walked down the street with his hands tucked into his bluejean pockets.
The snow is hitting the ground and sticking just a little, with each large fluffy flake making a little white patch that looks just a tiny bit like a loogie.
Jazz is a nice music for the shoppe, but murky coffee is much better to my taste. I'm facing the danger that the best coffee on the planet is the first coffee I done drunk.
I hate this case. I loved this case.
When I first read this, it was a no-brainer. Some asshole manager who was found to have engaged in discrimination was then filing an EEO case based on how he was transferred away from his plant based on the AJ's award against the agency because this fool discriminated against someone! It's almost not a claim - you can't claim that you were retaliated against because of … discriminating, that is not a protected activity. However, he has an angle that gets him in the door. The thing is, as I read the case, and as I talked to the other people about the person who was allegedly discriminated against, I find another story that fits these "facts." He is a manager with a poor employee - one who has no qualms about using the EEO process to thwart every effort at treating her as another employee with attendance, performance, conduct, and attitude problems. I re-read her accusations against him - and you know what? When you read her claim, and see his restatement of it, it does sound really stupid. He "glared" at her? Da fuck is a glare worth filing an EEO claim for? The claim that costs the agency an easy 5-10 grand just to investigate. Then you read the results - the man probably did retaliate against her, but in his reality - which might be the truth, or his truth - she was knowingly using the EEO process to fight any attempt at control, and he was the victim of his supervisors jumping at shadows. He has lost money by being transferred, and claims he missed the death of a relative for being far away.
So. Which reality is real, or are both realities real? Are the facts the same, but seen through different perspectives? Are these perspectives theirs for real, or what they are trying to convince the people who can "reward them for their pain," or just the reality that they want to believe in where they are the good guys? Which reality is real?
And when I have problems with my boss' boss, when I fear her eye isn't just treating me like shit but setting me up for action, I contemplate the EEO angle. Most everyone she drove off was male. Does she discriminate, or is she just that way towards everyone? Is she wrong? Is her motivation wrong? Do I use this shield even if it isn't really the case but fits the demographics? If I don't and others wield this shield as a sword - am I ethical or foolish?
Thing is, empathy is a strength and a weakness of mine. When I first get a case, I read it and jump to conclusions. The disabled woman who had to retire on disability made me scream inside - were we wrong? Was this victim abused by the agency I have to represent? Was I going to be a hired gun for the bad guys enabling their prejudice? I _believed_ her story, felt it, cried for her in a way. For who I thought she was, for the story I heard. Only, as I went through the steps, asked the questions, got the information, heard the other sides of the story, talked to the "bad guy" without treating him like the bad guy - I found this story to be full of not-true. As redsteve says "That is not accurate" (I'm not calling you a liar - that's illegal. What I am telling you is that what you are telling me is not accurate). Now I'm finding that her story is not only not true, but that when I point out inaccuracies to her
Note - you don't point out inaccuracies to someone before they are on the witness stand - this is a classic young lawyer mistake. You want to catch them in a lie, but the better way to do that is get the information which proves them dishonest and shove it in their face in front of the judge, or bring out both pieces of sworn testimony that can't be true at the same time and blammo in front of the judge. If you do it before hand, they have weeks or months to a) make up a lie that fits both realities, or b) reneg the less advantageous lie and show artificial remorse for the deception.
I'm finding she quickly changes her story. I think her entire pretense for getting a job with us was not to work, but to use it as a way to get disability retirement checks for life. She got away with it, and is now trying to use the system to score even more cash. When I read her story I believed it, hated it, but it didn't hold up to investigation of the facts.
So this empathy is a strength and a weakness. It's a weakness because as I get emotionally involved in a case, I gain fervor or lose conviction in my work. It's a strength because I 'get it;' I understand how people feel, I predict what they might think about the case, and I can therefore anticipate how they will categorize new facts that enter the picture. Because I believed the sick woman was a victim, I can better show how she's a shyster. Because I believed the manager was an asshole, I can show how he's really a victim. What I won't do is use these techniques to hide the truth. Or at least I hope not to - a great luxury I get at my job is not having to _really_ compromise my morals. When I can show we did wrong, we fix the problem and settle the case. We litigate when we were right. Note - unfortunately we more often settle cases not because we actually did wrong, but lack the information to beat the legal test to win. I think the vast majority of our people are really trying to do the right thing - not just for discrimination issues, but for food safety. They're generally good people.
GOD THIS SNOW IS FUCKING GORGEOUS. So is that long-haired blond guy with wire-spectacles who just walked down the street with his hands tucked into his bluejean pockets.
The snow is hitting the ground and sticking just a little, with each large fluffy flake making a little white patch that looks just a tiny bit like a loogie.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-19 08:10 pm (UTC)Hope you're enjoying Baltiwhore...
no subject
Date: 2009-01-19 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-19 09:56 pm (UTC)This LJ will soon contain pictures. Of penises. In public.