is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    Muzwell may not agree with the law, but harassment in the workplace is, in fact, against the law. 

     

    Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA).

    Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.

    Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.

    Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

    • The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
    • The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
    • Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the victim.

    Prevention is the best tool to eliminate harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take appropriate steps to prevent and correct unlawful harassment. They should clearly communicate to employees that unwelcome harassing conduct will not be tolerated. They can do this by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process, providing anti-harassment training to their managers and employees, and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains. Employers should strive to create an environment in which employees feel free to raise concerns and are confident that those concerns will be addressed.

    Employees are encouraged to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. Employees should also report harassment to management at an early stage to prevent its escalation.

    Employer Liability for Harassment

    The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.

    The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.

    When investigating allegations of harassment, the EEOC looks at the entire record: including the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination of whether harassment is severe or pervasive enough to be illegal is made on a case-by-case basis.

    If you believe that the harassment you are experiencing or witnessing is of a specifically sexual nature, you may want to see EEOC's information on sexual harassment.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone even thought that maybe Martin has emotional or mental issues that can be treated like depression but he doesn't realise it or he does but won't do anything about it because it could be interpreted as not very masculine/macho for a big, strong guy to admit that he has depression?

    This doesn't excuse Incog for his actions as how he has acted sounds very juvenile to me.

    This isn't high school or even college.  These guys are adults and professionals.  Granted, they are adults that play a violent game for a living but that doesn't make that kind of behavior any more acceptable.

    [/QUOTE]

    I really see nothing wrong with anything Martin did.  He handled it maturely.  He recognized that he was in a toxic situation, and quietly removed himself from it.  Throwing punches, as some here seem to want him to do, would be the worst thing he could do.  Boys do that kind of stuff.  Men don't.

    If the organization thought that Martin overreacted (which would be the implication from thinking he might have mental issues/depression), they would not have immediately cut ties with Incognito.

    [/QUOTE]

    Mature... I will add smart.

    Trying to address the issue in the way that the small-minded thugs would have wanted him to, will simply perpetuate the dysfunctional culture. By doing what he did, there is a better chance he brings about change -- a change that future rookies will benefit from.

    In doing what he did, Martin will get the last laugh.

    1) It will change in the conduct of veterans towards rookies

    2) Martin may have put Incognito out of the NFL. He may get away from charges of racism. Extortion is a criminal offense. Compund that with death threats and threats to Martin's family. Grounds for voiding his contract? 

    3) Apparently Martin checked into a hospital for emitonal distress. This guarantees civil lawsuits in the future - vs Incognito (probably financially crippling the bully), separately vs the NFL (for not ensuring a safe environment for its employees).

    Literally punching Incognito on the mouth will never accomplish all three.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone even thought that maybe Martin has emotional or mental issues that can be treated like depression but he doesn't realise it or he does but won't do anything about it because it could be interpreted as not very masculine/macho for a big, strong guy to admit that he has depression?

    This doesn't excuse Incog for his actions as how he has acted sounds very juvenile to me.

    This isn't high school or even college.  These guys are adults and professionals.  Granted, they are adults that play a violent game for a living but that doesn't make that kind of behavior any more acceptable.

    [/QUOTE]

    I really see nothing wrong with anything Martin did.  He handled it maturely.  He recognized that he was in a toxic situation, and quietly removed himself from it.  Throwing punches, as some here seem to want him to do, would be the worst thing he could do.  Boys do that kind of stuff.  Men don't.

    If the organization thought that Martin overreacted (which would be the implication from thinking he might have mental issues/depression), they would not have immediately cut ties with Incognito.

    [/QUOTE]

    Mature... I will add smart.

    Trying to address the issue in the way that the small-minded thugs would have wanted him to, will simply perpetuate the dysfunctional culture. By doing what he did, there is a better chance he brings about change -- a change that future rookies will benefit from.

    In doing what he did, Martin will get the last laugh.

    1) It will change in the conduct of veterans towards rookies

    2) Martin may have put Incognito out of the NFL. He may get away from charges of racism. Extortion is a criminal offense. Compund that with death threats and threats to Martin's family. Grounds for voiding his contract? 

    3) Apparently Martin checked into a hospital for emitonal distress. This guarantees civil lawsuits in the future - vs Incognito (probably financially crippling the bully), separately vs the NFL (for not ensuring a safe environment for its employees).

    Literally punching Incognito on the mouth will never accomplish all three.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Punching Incognito would also potentially be a crime (assault).  Martin is smart and responsible not to take that path. 

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Muzwell may not agree with the law, but harassment in the workplace is, in fact, against the law. 

     

    Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA).

    Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.

    Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.

    Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

    • The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
    • The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
    • Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the victim.

    Prevention is the best tool to eliminate harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take appropriate steps to prevent and correct unlawful harassment. They should clearly communicate to employees that unwelcome harassing conduct will not be tolerated. They can do this by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process, providing anti-harassment training to their managers and employees, and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains. Employers should strive to create an environment in which employees feel free to raise concerns and are confident that those concerns will be addressed.

    Employees are encouraged to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. Employees should also report harassment to management at an early stage to prevent its escalation.

    Employer Liability for Harassment

    The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.

    The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.

    When investigating allegations of harassment, the EEOC looks at the entire record: including the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination of whether harassment is severe or pervasive enough to be illegal is made on a case-by-case basis.

    If you believe that the harassment you are experiencing or witnessing is of a specifically sexual nature, you may want to see EEOC's information on sexual harassment.

    [/QUOTE]

    Your misunderstanding this, only the employer is liable  Adults can say mean things to one another.  In this country we found that to be such an important component to a free democracy we put it in the Bill of Rights.  It's the first one.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHAMPSXLVIII. Show CHAMPSXLVIII's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    Dolphins players are saying Martin and incognito were best friends. That Martin laughed about the voicemail when he played it for the guys in the lockerroom. 

    it looks like Martin  was upset about getting replaced by McKinnie and is setting up a bogus lawsuit

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Muzwell may not agree with the law, but harassment in the workplace is, in fact, against the law. 

     

    Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA).

    Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.

    Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.

    Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

    • The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
    • The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
    • Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the victim.

    Prevention is the best tool to eliminate harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take appropriate steps to prevent and correct unlawful harassment. They should clearly communicate to employees that unwelcome harassing conduct will not be tolerated. They can do this by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process, providing anti-harassment training to their managers and employees, and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains. Employers should strive to create an environment in which employees feel free to raise concerns and are confident that those concerns will be addressed.

    Employees are encouraged to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. Employees should also report harassment to management at an early stage to prevent its escalation.

    Employer Liability for Harassment

    The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.

    The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.

    When investigating allegations of harassment, the EEOC looks at the entire record: including the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination of whether harassment is severe or pervasive enough to be illegal is made on a case-by-case basis.

    If you believe that the harassment you are experiencing or witnessing is of a specifically sexual nature, you may want to see EEOC's information on sexual harassment.



    Your misunderstanding this, only the employer is liable  Adults can say mean things to one another.  In this country we found that to be such an important component to a free democracy we put it in the Bill of Rights.  It's the first one.

    [/QUOTE]

    Co-workers can be held liable for damages too.  Both Incognito as the harasser and the employer are at risk here. 

     

    When a determination has been made that harassment did occur in the workplace, the following liability standards apply:

    • Harassment by a supervisor or manager involving a “tangible job action”: the employer is always liable. A “tangible job action” includes such things as hiring, firing, failure to promote, loss of raise, etc.

    Harassment by a supervisor or manager involving hostile environment: employer is liable unless the employer proves that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and remedy any harassing behavior, and that the complainant failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective measures or otherwise avoid harm.

    • Harassment by a supervisor or manager: the harasser may be individually liable, as well as the employer.

    • Harassment by a co-worker, non-employee or other outside person: the employer is liable if the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and did not take prompt remedial action.

    • Co-workers may also be individually liable for damages caused by harassment.

    Owners, managers and supervisors need to be aware of the provisions of the laws prohibiting harassment in order to handle problems if and when they occur. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Dolphins players are saying Martin and incognito were best friends. That Martin laughed about the voicemail when he played it for the guys in the lockerroom. 

    it looks like Martin  was upset about getting replaced by McKinnie and is setting up a bogus lawsuit

    [/QUOTE]

    If that recording is real, the lawsuit is probably not bogus.  He's got a good case if he has evidence that such harassment was repeated.  If it was "ordered" by the coach, Philbin and the Dolphins are deep in hot water. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to shenanigan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Muzwell may not agree with the law, but harassment in the workplace is, in fact, against the law. 

     

    Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA).

    Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.

    Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.

    Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

    • The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
    • The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
    • Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the victim.

    Prevention is the best tool to eliminate harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take appropriate steps to prevent and correct unlawful harassment. They should clearly communicate to employees that unwelcome harassing conduct will not be tolerated. They can do this by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process, providing anti-harassment training to their managers and employees, and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains. Employers should strive to create an environment in which employees feel free to raise concerns and are confident that those concerns will be addressed.

    Employees are encouraged to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. Employees should also report harassment to management at an early stage to prevent its escalation.

    Employer Liability for Harassment

    The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.

    The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.

    When investigating allegations of harassment, the EEOC looks at the entire record: including the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination of whether harassment is severe or pervasive enough to be illegal is made on a case-by-case basis.

    If you believe that the harassment you are experiencing or witnessing is of a specifically sexual nature, you may want to see EEOC's information on sexual harassment.

     



    Your misunderstanding this, only the employer is liable  Adults can say mean things to one another.  In this country we found that to be such an important component to a free democracy we put it in the Bill of Rights.  It's the first one.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Co-workers can be held liable for damages too.  Both Incognito as the harasser and the employer are at risk here. 

     

    When a determination has been made that harassment did occur in the workplace, the following liability standards apply:

    • Harassment by a supervisor or manager involving a “tangible job action”: the employer is always liable. A “tangible job action” includes such things as hiring, firing, failure to promote, loss of raise, etc.

    Harassment by a supervisor or manager involving hostile environment: employer is liable unless the employer proves that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and remedy any harassing behavior, and that the complainant failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective measures or otherwise avoid harm.

    • Harassment by a supervisor or manager: the harasser may be individually liable, as well as the employer.

    • Harassment by a co-worker, non-employee or other outside person: the employer is liable if the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and did not take prompt remedial action.

    • Co-workers may also be individually liable for damages caused by harassment.

    Owners, managers and supervisors need to be aware of the provisions of the laws prohibiting harassment in order to handle problems if and when they occur. 

    [/QUOTE]

    So you are saying that being mean to people is a crime in the United States of America.  Please provide one example of criminal charges to support that statement.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    May I add...

    I believe the comments by players supporting Incognito may actually be getting the NFL into more trouble with labor law. It is showing ignorance of acceptable behavior in the workplace. It only means the NFL did not educate their employees like every multi-billion dollar company does.

    Interesting...

    I checked out Gus Martin (dad)... 

    He's a JD and PhD

    Civil lawsuit guaranteed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    Serious question Pro, do you think calling someone a name should be a crime?  Who should decide which things are allowed to be said?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHAMPSXLVIII. Show CHAMPSXLVIII's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Dolphins players are saying Martin and incognito were best friends. That Martin laughed about the voicemail when he played it for the guys in the lockerroom. 

    it looks like Martin  was upset about getting replaced by McKinnie and is setting up a bogus lawsuit

    [/QUOTE]

    If that recording is real, the lawsuit is probably not bogus.  He's got a good case if he has evidence that such harassment was repeated.  If it was "ordered" by the coach, Philbin and the Dolphins are deep in hot water. 

    [/QUOTE]

    But  it is said they were very good friends and this was a voicemail from many months ago. This story does not add up. All the dolphins players taking incognitoa side.

    couldnt this be a case where he was joking with a friend. I say very inappropriate things to my friends but it's not meant seriously

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHAMPSXLVIII. Show CHAMPSXLVIII's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    May I add...

    I believe the comments by players supporting Incognito may actually be getting the NFL into more trouble with labor law. It is showing ignorance of acceptable behavior in the workplace. It only means the NFL did not educate their employees like every multi-billion dollar company does.

    Interesting...

    I checked out Gus Martin (dad)... 

    He's a JD and PhD

    Civil lawsuit guaranteed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Only if there is negligence. More negligence by Miami than the NFL here.  The players are making the union look bad.

    This is a second year player being heckled a load turd loser, apparently, on a regular basis.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Have you ever seen the movie rashomon?  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Serious question Pro, do you think calling someone a name should be a crime?  Who should decide which things are allowed to be said?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think creating a hostile work environment should be a crime.  That's what was done.  

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Serious question Pro, do you think calling someone a name should be a crime?  Who should decide which things are allowed to be said?

    [/QUOTE]


    If it is part of a campaign that makes the workplace hostile or abusive or physically threatening, then it absolutely is unlawful.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Serious question Pro, do you think calling someone a name should be a crime?  Who should decide which things are allowed to be said?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think creating a hostile work environment should be a crime.  That's what was done.  

    [/QUOTE]

    A hostile work environment is not a crime. Nobody is going to get prosecuted here. A civil lawsuit perhaps, but unless Martin is claiming violence or extortion by Incognito, there's no allegation of crime. 

    Martin realized he wasn't cut out for the NFL, wanted out and daddy said, hey do this and you'll get paid on the way out. Feel sorry for him if you want, I'm not buying a bit of it.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Serious question Pro, do you think calling someone a name should be a crime?  Who should decide which things are allowed to be said?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think creating a hostile work environment should be a crime.  That's what was done.  

    [/QUOTE]

    A hostile work environment is not a crime. Nobody is going to get prosecuted here. A civil lawsuit perhaps, but unless Martin is claiming violence or extortion by Incognito, there's no allegation of crime. 

    Martin realized he wasn't cut out for the NFL, wanted out and daddy said, hey do this and you'll get paid on the way out. Feel sorry for him if you want, I'm not buying a bit of it.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, that's why in my original post I said "against the law" rather than a "crime."  The employer can be held liable in a civil suit as, possibly, could be Incognito (though that might be a more difficult case).  There is a slight possiblity that Incognito's threats could be considered a crime under state harassment law, but that's probably not where this will go.  An extortion case, as you say, is more likely. 

    Regardless, creating a hostile work environment is against the law and therefore in a loose sense of the word, a crime.  If you want to be more technically correct, call it a civil offence. Either way it's illegal.

    As it should be. 

     

     

     

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    A couple of thoughts

    There was an incident recently that all of the players got up and left him alone at lunch. This sort of abandonment may have triggered the final straw that he felt the coaches and all the other players were against him. if the players are saying that they were good friends, and then that friend led to his total estrangement by his " family"

    I find it impossible to believe the coaches didn't know abouT this incident ( I would fire the coach)

    i wouldn't want to stay either! especially of I felt the coaches approved it.

     

    Second, unlike when we grew up and how we should deal with bullies, today is different. The difference is today there are guns. who was one of the Oline and. A friend , Pouncey, who is Pouncy friends with? a Hernandez, and what did he do? Do you think incognito might have a gun? Or know how to get one? I wouldn't be fighting him either

    I don't know what the total truth is, but as long as he is getting his contract, he has no financial losses, I just don't see a successful suit even if that is what he wishes. 

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone even thought that maybe Martin has emotional or mental issues that can be treated like depression but he doesn't realise it or he does but won't do anything about it because it could be interpreted as not very masculine/macho for a big, strong guy to admit that he has depression?

    This doesn't excuse Incog for his actions as how he has acted sounds very juvenile to me.

    This isn't high school or even college.  These guys are adults and professionals.  Granted, they are adults that play a violent game for a living but that doesn't make that kind of behavior any more acceptable.

    [/QUOTE]

    I really see nothing wrong with anything Martin did.  He handled it maturely.  He recognized that he was in a toxic situation, and quietly removed himself from it.  Throwing punches, as some here seem to want him to do, would be the worst thing he could do.  Boys do that kind of stuff.  Men don't.

    If the organization thought that Martin overreacted (which would be the implication from thinking he might have mental issues/depression), they would not have immediately cut ties with Incognito.

    [/QUOTE]

    Mature... I will add smart.

    Trying to address the issue in the way that the small-minded thugs would have wanted him to, will simply perpetuate the dysfunctional culture. By doing what he did, there is a better chance he brings about change -- a change that future rookies will benefit from.

    In doing what he did, Martin will get the last laugh.

    1) It will change in the conduct of veterans towards rookies

    2) Martin may have put Incognito out of the NFL. He may get away from charges of racism. Extortion is a criminal offense. Compund that with death threats and threats to Martin's family. Grounds for voiding his contract? 

    3) Apparently Martin checked into a hospital for emitonal distress. This guarantees civil lawsuits in the future - vs Incognito (probably financially crippling the bully), separately vs the NFL (for not ensuring a safe environment for its employees).

    Literally punching Incognito on the mouth will never accomplish all three.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Great post. I may disagree with you on certain football issues but you are always making good points.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    Not to get lost in the weeds here (not to be confused with laying in the weeds...), but a hostile work envirnonment in and of itself is not a crime. Negligence is a civil matter, always. Conduct that causes the work environment to be hostile can rise to the level of a criminal offense, but that's very rare. The DA is not going to prosecute workplace harassment unless there is a physical violence or some other crime. 

    Except for the possibility of extortion, I haven't seen or heard anything that is potentially criminal in this situation. And frankly, the extortion claim is pretty weak unless it was coupled with a threat that we don't know about yet. Prosecutors sometimes do weird things in highly visible cases, but generally speaking there has to be more than hurt feelings for the DA to get involved. 

    Like it or not, it is very common for employees who are unhappy to find some excuse to sue on their way out. Happens a lot.  That's what this is in my opinion, it's just more visible and more sensational. The guy doesn't want to play football any more, but he wants to get paid on the way out. He found a way nine weeks into the season. All of a sudden now he's all threatened by a year old voice message (that he was allegedly laughing about), and upset about the Vegas trip that was months ago, coincidentally only after they brought in McKinnie to take his job? OK. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone even thought that maybe Martin has emotional or mental issues that can be treated like depression but he doesn't realise it or he does but won't do anything about it because it could be interpreted as not very masculine/macho for a big, strong guy to admit that he has depression?

    This doesn't excuse Incog for his actions as how he has acted sounds very juvenile to me.

    This isn't high school or even college.  These guys are adults and professionals.  Granted, they are adults that play a violent game for a living but that doesn't make that kind of behavior any more acceptable.

    [/QUOTE]

    I really see nothing wrong with anything Martin did.  He handled it maturely.  He recognized that he was in a toxic situation, and quietly removed himself from it.  Throwing punches, as some here seem to want him to do, would be the worst thing he could do.  Boys do that kind of stuff.  Men don't.

    If the organization thought that Martin overreacted (which would be the implication from thinking he might have mental issues/depression), they would not have immediately cut ties with Incognito.

    [/QUOTE]

    Mature... I will add smart.

    Trying to address the issue in the way that the small-minded thugs would have wanted him to, will simply perpetuate the dysfunctional culture. By doing what he did, there is a better chance he brings about change -- a change that future rookies will benefit from.

    In doing what he did, Martin will get the last laugh.

    1) It will change in the conduct of veterans towards rookies

    2) Martin may have put Incognito out of the NFL. He may get away from charges of racism. Extortion is a criminal offense. Compund that with death threats and threats to Martin's family. Grounds for voiding his contract? 

    3) Apparently Martin checked into a hospital for emitonal distress. This guarantees civil lawsuits in the future - vs Incognito (probably financially crippling the bully), separately vs the NFL (for not ensuring a safe environment for its employees).

    Literally punching Incognito on the mouth will never accomplish all three.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Great post. I may disagree with you on certain football issues but you are always making good points.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks.

    As far as football is concerned. I don't mind the disagreement. I never forget I am an amateur when it comes to analyzing the game... more improtantly, that there is life outside BDC. Makes it easier to enjoy watching the NFL and coming here.

    Also, Pats are 7-2... Cheers

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    Lots of good points being made in this discussion about an issue that appears to transcend sports.  A couple of these points warrant either restating or perhaps amplification in my judgment:

    1)  Actually, we don't know what the facts of the case truly are and probably won't until the investigation is completed;

    2)  As an employer who has been sued for creating a 'hostile work environment' such allegations flow easily from the lips of employees or former employees who have either been disciplined, terminated for cause or both.  Facts and circumstances of the matter should provide some measure of illumination in this regard;

    3)  As in 2) above, the word 'bully' is often thrown around rather cavalierly in today's culture.  Please don't misunderstand, it certainly does appear that if anyone fits that moniker it's Incognito but until we truly know what happened (see 1) above) it may be premature to simply label this a simple case of locker room 'bullying'.  It may be less, it may be more, we don't know.

    I'm genuinely impressed with some of the thoughtful perspectives that have been offered in the posts in this thread.  A truly interesting and thought provoking read.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Lots of good points being made in this discussion about an issue that appears to transcend sports.  A couple of these points warrant either restating or perhaps amplification in my judgment:

    1)  Actually, we don't know what the facts of the case truly are and probably won't until the investigation is completed;

    2)  As an employer who has been sued for creating a 'hostile work environment' such allegations flow easily from the lips of employees or former employees who have either been disciplined, terminated for cause or both.  Facts and circumstances of the matter should provide some measure of illumination in this regard;

    3)  As in 2) above, the word 'bully' is often thrown around rather cavalierly in today's culture.  Please don't misunderstand, it certainly does appear that if anyone fits that moniker it's Incognito but until we truly know what happened (see 1) above) it may be premature to simply label this a simple case of locker room 'bullying'.  It may be less, it may be more, we don't know.

    I'm genuinely impressed with some of the thoughtful perspectives that have been offered in the posts in this thread.  A truly interesting and thought provoking read.

    [/QUOTE]


    Agree...  Work environments ("the office") can be peculiar to say the least.    Used to be "sexual harassment" ,  then "equal pay for equal work"   ,  now "hostile work environment" and "bullying".    Buzzwords all over .  Hope your court case worked out , but I'll guess that it was just an expensive waste of time.

    Employees rights are peculiar too.  YOu would think there would be more outrage over being forced to pee in a cup...lol.

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Lots of good points being made in this discussion about an issue that appears to transcend sports.  A couple of these points warrant either restating or perhaps amplification in my judgment:

    1)  Actually, we don't know what the facts of the case truly are and probably won't until the investigation is completed;

    2)  As an employer who has been sued for creating a 'hostile work environment' such allegations flow easily from the lips of employees or former employees who have either been disciplined, terminated for cause or both.  Facts and circumstances of the matter should provide some measure of illumination in this regard;

    3)  As in 2) above, the word 'bully' is often thrown around rather cavalierly in today's culture.  Please don't misunderstand, it certainly does appear that if anyone fits that moniker it's Incognito but until we truly know what happened (see 1) above) it may be premature to simply label this a simple case of locker room 'bullying'.  It may be less, it may be more, we don't know.

    I'm genuinely impressed with some of the thoughtful perspectives that have been offered in the posts in this thread.  A truly interesting and thought provoking read.

    [/QUOTE]


    Agree...  Work environments ("the office") can be peculiar to say the least.    Used to be "sexual harassment" ,  then "equal pay for equal work"   ,  now "hostile work environment" and "bullying".    Buzzwords all over .  Hope your court case worked out , but I'll guess that it was just an expensive waste of time.

    Employees rights are peculiar too.  YOu would think there would be more outrage over being forced to pee in a cup...lol. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Once we demonstrated that holding someone accountable for the repeated placing of long distance personal phone calls on organization phones was not exactly a hostile act but management due diligence, it was dismissed.  An annoyance and wasteful of time, yes indeed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    One point that probably should be made on this thread is that as of now, Martin has not threatened any lawsuit or made any attempt to file one (at least as far as I've heard).  So the idea that he wanted to quit football and get money going out the door is pure speculation.  There is an alternative possibility, and that's simply that Martin couldn't endure continued "harassment" from his teammates and didn't want to remain in a work environment where such behaviour was tolerated.  I put "harassment" in quotes, here, because I'm using it as a general term, not as a legal term.  The type of harassment to which Martin was subject may not have been technically illegal, but it still may have made the work environment intolerable for Martin.  The question, then, is not a legal one, but simply a policy question.  Does the NFL want to allow work environments where behaviour like Incognito's is tolerated and maybe even encouraged?  I suspect not. Incognito's actions are, in my opinion, disgusting and deplorable, and I doubt the NFL wants to be seen by the public as an organization that promotes that kind of behaviour among its employees.  I'm also not sure the NFL wants to create a work environment where talented young football players feel abused and (in extreme cases like Martin's) want to leave.  

    One thing I find interesting about this case, is what happens to Martin now.  Normally, an employee who finds his work environment unsatisfactory can simply quit and go find a job in his field elsewhere.  But the rules in football bind the employee to a single team.  So what is Martin's recourse if he's harassed by his teammates on the Dolphins?  Put up with it or end his NFL career?  That's not, in my opinion, a satisfactory solution if there's clear evidence that Martin's dissatisfaction with the Dolphins was due solely to his teammates being abusive.  In such a situation, it seems to me that the player should be allowed to seek employment with another team.  It will be interesting to see how the union and league work this one out.  Martin's contract binds him to the Dolphins.  But if the Dolphins create an abusive work environment where Martin can't work, should that void the contract?  I'd think yes, but we'll see how it plays out. 

    Remember as well, the fact that there is a contract involved may force legal action from Martin.  If there is a lawsuit, there will be a tendency for some to assume that Martin was just hoping to get money all along.  But, if some solution isn't worked out that either makes it possible for him to return to the Dolphins under satisfactory conditions or find employment with another team, Martin may be forced to take legal action to try to achieve satisfactory resolution.  That, I think, would be completely justified given the complexities of his employment situation.  

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: is it WRONG to be leaning against MARTIN?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    One point that probably should be made on this thread is that as of now, Martin has not threatened any lawsuit or made any attempt to file one (at least as far as I've heard).  So the idea that he wanted to quit football and get money going out the door is pure speculation.  There is an alternative possibility, and that's simply that Martin couldn't endure continued "harassment" from his teammates and didn't want to remain in a work environment where such behaviour was tolerated.  I put "harassment" in quotes, here, because I'm using it as a general term, not as a legal term.  The type of harassment to which Martin was subject may not have been technically illegal, but it still may have made the work environment intolerable for Martin.  The question, then, is not a legal one, but simply a policy question.  Does the NFL want to allow work environments where behaviour like Incognito's is tolerated and maybe even encouraged?  I suspect not. Incognito's actions are, in my opinion, disgusting and deplorable, and I doubt the NFL wants to be seen by the public as an organization that promotes that kind of behaviour among its employees.  I'm also not sure the NFL wants to create a work environment where talented young football players feel abused and (in extreme cases like Martin's) want to leave.  

    One thing I find interesting about this case, is what happens to Martin now.  Normally, an employee who finds his work environment unsatisfactory can simply quit and go find a job in his field elsewhere.  But the rules in football bind the employee to a single team.  So what is Martin's recourse if he's harassed by his teammates on the Dolphins?  Put up with it or end his NFL career?  That's not, in my opinion, a satisfactory solution if there's clear evidence that Martin's dissatisfaction with the Dolphins was due solely to his teammates being abusive.  In such a situation, it seems to me that the player should be allowed to seek employment with another team.  It will be interesting to see how the union and league work this one out.  Martin's contract binds him to the Dolphins.  But if the Dolphins create an abusive work environment where Martin can't work, should that void the contract?  I'd think yes, but we'll see how it plays out. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Interesting angle...   But I would speculate that the contract is what the difference is.  Most employee siuations are just that ,  no contract.  The contract will be broken down to its exact wording and then most likely a settlement , Maybe by a court if it is pushed that far.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share