NOT IN THE LIFETIME…EVERRRR

no this is not a joke..it shocked the heck out of us. I called the emergency contact and told them what happened and what were we supposed to do in a situation like this..she said "deal with it, if he wants to have sex with someone in front of you, you have to deal with it"

I don’t think this is right..so i called my "big boss" and asked him..he said all female staff is going to be pulled out as of this afternoon

my husband says we have a possibility of a sexual harassment lawsuit..i’m wondering is that true considering something of similar situation happened the day before and nothing was done about it?
it’s not a mental institution..it’s supported living services..
the situation that happened prior to what happened this morning was reported…so my reporting is actually the second PLUS the girl that it happened too..

For starters, you need to make it known to your bosses that you do not condone this behavior. Then, if they don’t do anything about it, it becomes the responsibility of THE COMPANY, not just the individual, next time it happens.

The employer had you sign it so that their workers compensation insurance premium would not increase. Since you signed the statement the employer obviously felt you had "sufficient grounds" to take action and "quit". He thought he was covering his butt, a sleazy move on their behalf and the judge will see that. Why sign anything unless your boss was hiding something? Get my point? Your signing only means that the employer obviously felt you had sufficient motivation to leave and felt intimidated.

Your initial claim will be denied. This is not the end of it. You are entitled to your insurance(since you pay for the insurance like it or not every month out of your check). You will be granted a hearing. As soon as they hear about them making you sign something coersed or not, they will decide in your favor. Take them to court. My neighbor Nick was pressured in the same manner as you, quit and had to go to court to get his benefits. He won!

The paper you signed is worthless. Who knows what motivated you to sign it. REGARDLESS, Some employers can be really intimidating. If your old company wants to play dirty, play dirty- Tell the judge he threatened to withhold your final paycheck until you signed. Get your benefits, ok?
Please write me back and let me know what happened, ok? I wish you all the best and I am sorry for what you are going through. I mean its tough enough finding a job!!!! God bless you and good luck.

williamhilow@yahoo.com

Your own question tell me why… you said "got fired from federal job".

Well every government application is going to ask you if you were fired and your going to say yes… that will do it right there. It wont matter why you were fired most employers will not even ask you why nor would they expect the old employer to tell them the truth, simply knowing you were fired is a reason to pass on you and that’s what happens in HR departments. The first pass on all applicants is just a filter to toss out the ones they don’t need and seeing one that says "FIRED" is a great way whittle the numbers down. And that’s how the HR systems work, they whittle down a big stack until its a little stack that they actually look at.

Sorry, but do yourself a favor if you were there less than a year look for a non-government job and don’t even mention that last one. As long as you didn’t apply for any credit or loans while you were there then you don’t have to worry about any trail leading back to that employer… if you apply at a Fed job they’ll have easy access to databases that will turn up things like your former job.

Sorry about that, but you next goal should be focused on finding a non-government job.

AS far as the folks saying sue for wrongful termination. Sorry but you would likely be wasting your time. You stated it was a probationary period during which time if you read the forms you signed it probably allowed for them to terminate you for any reason the wanted to. You also may find that you were in a state that has "employment at will" which pretty much means the employer has a right to terminate your employment with them at their whim.

Now most places will terminate or deny employment to gays/lesbians but will give another reason (most of the time a made up reason) so incase the applicant/employee takes the employer to court, the employer’s a** is covered because more and more judges are becoming less homophobic and granting equal rights to homosexuals.

That being aside, if sexual orientation is NOT mentioned in the Equal Employment policy, they may be allowed to discriminate against it and get away with it.

So I’m worried that I will be denied employment or fired in the long run because I’m gay. However, the reason I’m asking is because some people claim McDonald’s does NOT discriminate against sexual orientation. I would like to know if Burger King is the same way.

Does anyone know??
Thank you everyone so far, very useful insight.

And Mike C, I agree with you, a lot of employers don’t care at this point about gay employees, but I’m refering to the ones that may.

I do believe that it is petty that certain employers will discriminate against it, but surprisingly, large corporations or organizations won’t!

The FBI is even allowing gay/lesbian employees! See here if you don’t believe me: http://www.fbijobs.gov/1114.asp

Notice how sexual orientation is in there?? Amazing huh??
Yeah, Reese G, I know how you feel and I cannot believe that the KKK is still around after all these years. KKK member should be arrested or something, I know they have a constitutional right to their beliefs, but most of there talks are about conspiracy to terrorize and murder. I think it’s an honest shame!

I don’t know about corporate policy, but the NJ anti-discrimination laws definitely cover sexual orientation, so you are covered under that.

Now most places will terminate or deny employment to gays/lesbians but will give another reason (most of the time a made up reason) so incase the applicant/employee takes the employer to court, the employer’s a** is covered because more and more judges are becoming less homophobic and granting equal rights to homosexuals.

That being aside, if sexual orientation is NOT mentioned in the Equal Employment policy, they may be allowed to discriminate against it and get away with it.

So I’m worried that I will be denied employment or fired in the long run because I’m gay. However, the reason I’m asking is because some people claim McDonald’s does NOT discriminate against sexual orientation. I would like to know if Burger King is the same way.

Does anyone know??
Thank you everyone so far, very useful insight.

And Mike C, I agree with you, a lot of employers don’t care at this point about gay employees, but I’m refering to the ones that may.

I do believe that it is petty that certain employers will discriminate against it, but surprisingly, large corporations or organizations won’t!

The FBI is even allowing gay/lesbian employees! See here if you don’t believe me: http://www.fbijobs.gov/1114.asp

Notice how sexual orientation is in there?? Amazing huh??
Yeah, Reese G, I know how you feel and I cannot believe that the KKK is still around after all these years. KKK member should be arrested or something, I know they have a constitutional right to their beliefs, but most of there talks are about conspiracy to terrorize and murder. I think it’s an honest shame!

I don’t know about corporate policy, but the NJ anti-discrimination laws definitely cover sexual orientation, so you are covered under that.

African Americans receive affirmative action and other protection from racial discrimination on the basis that it is easy to identify that they are racially different from other people. If homosexuals were granted any sort of special rights, how are they able to prove that they are homosexual? Anyone can lie and claim that they are homosexual but where is the proof? If affirmative action were granted on the basis of homosexuality, what would stop a straight man from claiming that his employer fired him for being homosexual? Perhaps his employer threw off some homosexual slurs at some point which could be enough to make it appear a sexual orientation oriented termination of employment. An African American can easily claim that the employer terminated him or her for being of color and couple that with proof the employer was racially discriminating such as using racial slurs. The court would have no doubt that the man is of a different race and that the termination was racially motivated.

Allow me to bring forth homosexual marriage. The law would have to specifically define homosexuality when granting homosexuals the right to marry. If the law is stated too broadly, then anyone could marry anything which is not the intent. If the law specifies the right to homosexual marriage specifically, how are authorities to be able to tell if in fact two people seeking marriage are in fact homosexuals (as opposed to two straight friends deciding to get legally married to get the benefits)? Are homosexuals going to be required to drop their pants and demonstrate sexual arousal exclusively to stimuli from the same and not opposite sex? Folks claim that homosexuality is genetic, but until that gene can be clearly identified in every individual claiming to be a homosexual, how can you grant rights to that specific demographic? Once again if the law is more loosely described as the right for a man to marry a man, women to women, and man to women, what will stop others from demanding the same rights based on alternate sexual preferences? This is whether or not other sexual preferences and/or behaviors are genetically based. If you do not have hard proof (DNA test that shows positive or negative to hereditary homosexuality trait) that homosexuality is genetic, then all the other sexual "preferences" can make a claim to affirmative action, right to marriage, etc and claim that they are victims of sexual preference discrimination as well.

So this being the case, how can homosexuals have any demand for affirmative action, marriage, and other rights without being able to demonstrate their homosexual birth status? And do not tell me you know you are homosexual and feel you are homosexual because (even if you tell the truth) someone else could lie about it. How can a homosexual prove his homosexuality? And how can a homosexual prove he was homosexual at birth as infants do not demonstrate homosexual behavior. If you cannot prove that you are homosexual, were born homosexual, and did not choose to be homosexual, why should you have any claim to protection based on discrimination of something you were born with?

PS Trying to turn the argument around on heterosexuals will not work because that is the common/majority sexual orientation. If it were not, none of us here would have been born. There is no burden of proof that heterosexuality is genetic or that heterosexuals need to prove anything to have marriage rights because they were created by and for them to begin with. Of course heterosexuals do not and cannot have a claim to discrimination based on heterosexuality.
Not everyone has, deserves, or is entitled to full rights. A criminal
has restricted rights (imprisonment or house arrest), a sex offender has
to register, etc. Pedophiles are not entitled to engage in sexual
activity with a child even if the child wants it because the child is
restricted from giving consent. This is inequality to the child and to
the pedophiles (but with good reason). All it would take it to knock out
one little rule pertaining to age of consent and then child molestation
would become legalized. So the premise that absolutely everyone deserves
legal rights is immediately flawed. Americans believe everyone is equal
by birth but can be judged for choices they make in your life.
Unlike all the people who were discriminated against based on easily
known birth differences, homosexuals do not have a visible trait that
proves them homosexual. Homosexuality can only be demonstrated through
homosexual behavior. This behavior has not been demonstrated in infants
while being a different race or having a disability has been
demonstrated in infants. Therefore the burden of proof is not only to
prove that homosexuality is genetic, it is also up to every homosexual
to prove that he/she in fact possesses that genetic trait to
differentiate himself from "posers" who are not homosexual and just
exhibit the same behavior. You wouldn’t deny that a straight person can
pose being homosexual would you? The posers wouldn’t be justified equal
protection under the law for choosing to be gay rather than being born
gay would they?
Choosing to be homosexual cannot justify rights under the law because those people would be choosing to waive their rights as a heterosexual to live a homosexual life. Someone moving to Mexico cannot demand American rights while living there. Therefore the "posers" who choose to be homosexual cannot lay claim to discrimination because they made a personal choice to waive rights. Therefore it is up to every individual homosexual to prove that in fact they are homosexual and to demonstrate that it could have only been from birth (DNA).

It’s compared to racism because homosexuals can’t help being homosexual any more than men can help being men, women can help being women, white people can help being white, black people can help being black, autistic people can help being autistic, retarded people can help being retarded, etc, etc.

Asking a gay person to be straight is like telling you to change the color of your skin, or tell a retarded person to do rocket science, or making an autistic person present a fabulous speech in front of a large audience, etc. etc.

EDIT:

Also, straight people ridicule gay people today just like white people did to the blacks back a few years ago.