Challenging Cancel Culture: Legal Insights on Employee Rights and Workplace Discrimination Explained

Transcript:

Unknown: 0:00

Hey, it’s Mark here and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide. This week we’re going to talk about the feedback I received from the previous article canceled culture is illegal at work. When I decided to write the first article, canceled culture is illegal at work. I normally anticipated immediate judgment and backlash. In essence, I knew I was going to be cancelled. That was the point. I was inviting debate about the entitlement mentality to cancel others that will. What I knew to be true was a lack of legal substance, the argument in favor of canceled culture being used and defended at work. How could there be in order for any legitimate social political argument to arise of future public policy and statutory initiation? There would need be a foundation based on prior legal precedent. without legal precedent kancil culture supporters are just acting arbitrarily based on social passions. passions and emotions are high certainly is not my intention to criticize canceled culture, but to show the negative consequences of the unfettered and arbitrary bias and the impact legally. Yes, it is still illegal to cancel at work, and I invite any argument to support why it is not. I am listening, but are you listening, listening to my question here, to ignore means to cancel me to accept Opposing Viewpoints is only wise, as it will convince opponents there may be a sliver of justification for canceled culture. All of our American legal developments that address social concerns always follow the same process, seeking a foothold in the rule of law. Your response to my first article, I received several angry email responses informing me I was wrong about what is canceled culture and accused me of perpetuating whiteness. But none of the objections to the article provided a legal basis to support the continued use and protection of canceled culture at work. This is my point. Proponents of canceled culture are not even understanding the legal issues or just ignore them entirely. In order to perpetuate their narrative. social movements must have a footing the rule of law, otherwise they do not and will not survive. Advocates of canceled culture never cite any legal basis to support its existence. But for the fact that it just is and we should all heed to it. The future of canceled culture at work will definitely result in lawsuits against individuals based on reverse discrimination. Now currently, only a select number of federal statutes provide individual liability, particularly 42 USC 1981. Section 1981 is commonly referred to oppose Civil War reconstruction statute to protect and enfranchise early African Americans to own land of their own and to contract for business purposes, both of which did not previously exist. Today, Employment Lawyers including myself use section 1981 to combat race discrimination in the workplace of any kind, whether brown, black, white, Hispanic, Latinx, or Asian Congress in the courts have never specified which race was protected by the statute. Actually, the word race was never mentioned in the statutory wording. Although it did set the standard to measure against it, quote, as is enjoyed by white citizens and quote 42 USC section 91 states specifically, party, all persons within jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every state or territory to make and enforce contracts to Sue B parties give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties taxes, licenses exactions of every time and to know whether that’s a lot. Barbie says For the purpose of this section. The term make and enforce contracts includes in making performance, modification and termination of contracts and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of contractual relationship. Well, that’s a huge statement to Part C. The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by non governmental discrimination and impairment under color of state law. That which just means the government’s acting individual liability for employees who pursue canceled culture at work. Most people who pursue canceled culture at work do not realize they can be sued individually for race discrimination under Section 1981. This is commonly referred to as a reverse race discrimination case. But that phrase too is also not mentioned in statutory language. To be clear, reverse race discrimination can apply to any race. courts are responsible for this development, and the use of Section 1981 to protect all races against invidious race discrimination. kancil culture is invidious race discrimination. There is no legal argument to be used to say that it is not. In fact, the point of this article is to demonstrate the utter lack of foundational legal support behind canceled culture at work. After all, we derive our individual rights liberties and protections from the rule of law. In order for kancil culture to rise to its its assumed Zenith, it must first ground itself in the rule of law. What do I mean by this? Let’s assume a canceled culture event occurred at work. An employee perpetuating the cancel canceling seeks to vindicate his legal right, not social right? To cancel another employee, the employee must assert legal standing to do so. Standing is a legal term that defines a right or opportunity to contest a legal interest. Where is the standing to cancel another employee at work? I’ve yet to hear any cogent argument to support canceled culture standing in the legal not social context. There are none canceled culture at work is illegal. I predict the canceled culture will not survive because legally flawed. If you would like more information about this or share your response to this article. Let us know. Contact Carey& Associates PC. Thank you a d have a great week.

Sharing is caring: