Ingredients:

Bars:
4 eggs
1 2/3 cups granulated sugar
1 cup vegetable oil
2 cups sifted all-purpose flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon baking soda
15-ounce can pumpkin

Icing:
1/2 cup butter or margarine, softened
2 cups sifted confectioners’ sugar
8-ounce package cream cheese, softened
1 teaspoon vanilla extract

Directions:

Making the Bars:

1.  Preheat oven to 350 degrees F.
2.  Combine the eggs, sugar, oil and pumpkin, with an electric mixer on medium speed, until light and fluffy.
3.  In a separate bowl combine the flour, baking powder, cinnamon, salt and baking soda.
4.  Add the dry ingredients to the pumpkin mixture and mix at low-speed until thoroughly combined and the batter is smooth.
5.  Spread the batter into a greased 13 by 10-inch baking pan. Bake for 30 minutes.
6.  Let cool completely before frosting. Cut into bars.

Making the icing:
1.  Combine the cream cheese, vanilla and butter in a medium bowl with an electric mixer until smooth.
2.  Add the sugar and mix at low-speed until combined.
3.  Frost cooled pumpkin bars.

Serve and Enjoy!

No sooner do I get done applauding a parent for creatively addressing her son’s failing grades and general lack of concern for getting an education; I read about a teacher who called out students on her personal blog and was suspended for it. The reasoning against doing both of those things is the sake of a child’s self-esteem according to the “experts”. Seriously, people need to get over this theory that children just needs love, kisses, hugs and rainbows in their lives as children to be successful adults.

Daily and I mean daily, parents attack and blame teachers for kids not getting educated. These parents don’t blame their own kids because goodness forbid we put the blame squarely where the blame belongs – on the kids. This teacher didn’t name the kids specifically, but I wouldn’t blame her if she did, she spoke in general terms. Parents are allowed to criticize teachers and name them so why shouldn’t teachers be allowed to criticize students and parents?

The “experts” complain about the embarrassment and how it will damage the kids self-esteem and they will just fall into ruins. Get over it. Kids today are over indulged and think they are entitled to everything. They shouldn’t have to earn grades by doing the work and turning it in on time, no no that is just wrong of teachers to expect. These teachers should allow them to turn work in late and get full credit. These teachers should throw out bad grades, grade on curve, make test easy and just hand kids the grade if the kid shows up for class.

Kids today and not just teenagers, middle-schoolers and elementary school kids are not the polite and respectful kids of my day. There were always one or two kids causing trouble but the majority of kids in my day were respectful of teachers. Spend a day volunteering in a classroom and you will hear cursing, open discussions about drugs and sex, see kids texting and on their electronic devices doing goodness knows what. They certainly aren’t doing what they are suppose to be doing and that is getting an education.

Parents and the community blame the teachers and the school system. Teachers blame the students, parents and the school system. Most of us can logically see that the school system is to blame by everyone. Teachers only have so much authority in their classrooms. Teachers are there to teach not police students but can’t teach because they have to spend time policing the students. Teachers are there to educate children and give them knowledge. Teachers are not there to teach manners, responsibility and respect that is a parents job. It takes both teachers and parents to get a child educated.

As for this teacher, she did nothing wrong in my book. If the parents of these kids are not going to deal with the fact that their child is not getting an education because of their own child and blame the teachers; well the teachers should have every right to voice their opinion and defend the job they are trying to do. A job that offers little pay in comparison with the responsibilities placed on teachers. Kids are lazy, rude, disrespectful and feel entitled to whatever they want and in the moment they want it. If their parents won’t deal with it, then I say about time someone else does and yes even if that someone is a teacher.

As to the school system that suspended her, get over it. This woman did not call out these students in class and in person or send notes home to parents as the children’s teacher. This woman wrote on her personal blog and happens to be a teacher. Not one of the students or the parents of those students were required to read this woman’s blog or her opinions. The students who complained because they aren’t lazy and get good grades, what are you complaining about? Clearly she wasn’t speaking of you so why get offended. Why would any good student want to complain is the real question. If I were a good student trying to get an education and other students were wasting my time to get that education with ill behavior, I would be pissed at the students not the teacher.

Society needs to get over this concept that all children need are rainbows, lollipops and magical unicorns in their lives to be successful. Self-esteem is just one of many ingredients kids need to be successful. I don’t care how much self-esteem a person has; if they are lacking self-respect then they will fail. To esteem anything is to evaluate it positively and hold it in high regard. The “experts” spout out that if we teach our child to do that then they will always win and be successful. That is not true because we don’t always win no matter how great or in high regard we hold ourselves. Self-esteem is about evaluation.

To respect something, on the other hand, is to accept it. Children and quite a few adults I know need to learn the value of self-respect. Children need to learn that although they should hold themselves in high regard; they must also learn to accept that they aren’t perfect either and will lose sometimes.

Self-esteem and self-respect go hand in hand. Self-esteem helps a child believe they can accomplish anything and evaluate themselves in the best light possible. Self-respect teaches them to like themselves for who they are regardless of what they accomplish. Therefore even if they believed they could accomplish whatever they were trying to do but failed, the self respect to accept that they failed and are still a great person is crucial as well. For me it is simple. Children fail and have their parents make excuses and blame others and even lie for their children. Children learn that and feel they need to do they same to protect the self-esteem that has been instilled in them. If you teach your child self-respect, they won’t feel the need to make excuses for their failure or lose and still get to hold on to the feeling and high regard they feel as well.

Children say it all the time but we are so enamored by the “experts” for being experts that we don’t see what is right in front of us. A child who thinks they are a bad child because they failed is not lacking confidence or belief in themselves, the are lacking the ability to accept that sometimes no matter how good a child they are they will lose or fail and that is ok and doesn’t make them a bad child. Children who learn self-respect are less prone to guilt, regret, lies, secrets and stress. They can recognize their limitations without feeling it damages who they are as a good child and then it helps then to work at changing what they can and accepting what they can’t.

Join the forum discussion on this post

I am not a fan of the news in general but last night a story caught my ear.  A mother in Tampa, Rhonda Holder, was fed up with her son’s failing grades and FCAT scores so she did something about it.  What she did was put her son on the street corner for 8 hours with a sign.  The sign reads:  ”I did four questions on my FCAT and said I wasn’t going to do it.  GPA 1.2222222.  Honk if I need education.”  After the news story broke, some have been calling her a bad mother and equating her actions to child abuse.  As a parent, I say “way to go Rhonda!”.

Rhonda’s son, 15 year old James, is not taking his education seriously.  Rhonda Holder said she has tried other approaches, like taking his cell phone away from him, but non of that has worked.  Her whole premise is that if he doesn’t get an education, that is the only job he will get so he better get started early.  She is absolutely right; without an education he doesn’t stand a chance in the job market.  Her hopes is that embarrassment and what it feels like to stand on that street corner for 8 hours a day will help him realize he needs an education.  This isn’t going to be a one time thing for James either.  Rhonda intends him to work a different corner over the next couple of weeks until he straightens out his act.

There are some who see what Rhonda is doing as a bad thing or her being a bad mother.  That is a bunch crap.  She is nearby so he isn’t standing out there alone, it is being done during daylight hours, the child is 15 years old and most importantly he isn’t being harmed.  There are the “experts” and people who feel that a child’s self-esteem is the most important thing in the world above all else; so embarrassing him publicly is wrong.  Yes, self-esteem is important but so is an education.  James will survive the embarrassment but he won’t survive if he doesn’t get an education.

I have addressed this issue about self-esteem in the past.  I disagree with the “experts”.  Self-esteem is important but it is not the only thing.  Great self-esteem alone is not the ticket to a great future.  Children need a mix of different knowledge, skills and abilities.  Children need to learn to cope with disappointment, embarrassment, hurt, sadness and the plethora of not so positive emotions that are out there and they will be confronted with.  Shielding children from the harsh realities of the real world and then sending them out into that real world unprepared is abuse.  I don’t suggest creating situations but I certainly disagree with shielding children from them entirely.  This is also a 15 year old child.  By 15 he should have started taking some responsibility for his life.  At 16 this same child can get a driver’s license.  At 18 he can vote.  Enough with the self-esteem, what he needs is a little self-respect and an education.  Giving him a taste of where his life is heading.

I say way to go Rhonda.  As a parent we have to take charge of our children’s education.  We as parents have to make sure they get the education they need.  The school system is not going to make that child do his work.  If the traditional methods aren’t working then, as a parent, it is time to think outside of those traditional methods and find something that will work.  I applaud her strength and determination to help her child get the education he needs.

Join the forum discussion on this post

Awwww such sweetness and love.

Click on the images to see the full size card.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate Court of the land.  The U.S. Constitution created one court that would have authority to rule over all laws, that is the short and simple version.  Before we get to the Supreme Court though a person or company must go through two tiers of lower courts.  We have two court systems in the U.S. and both can lead to the Supreme Court.

There are many roads that can lead to the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court is really an appellate court.  Cases that come before the Supreme Court are the results of lower court cases where one party feels the lower court misapplied the law or the Judge made a mistake or the lower courts simply disagree.  There are no juries or witnesses to be heard from as that is all done in the lower courts.  The Supreme Court has the record from the lower court and gives each side an opportunity to argue why the law should be applied in the manner they believe or why there was a mistake and they should be given a new trial or new judgment.  That is really a simplified answer but for this series of post it is all we need.

Currently the Supreme Court has a case before them that deals with the Cat’s Paw Theory discussed in the last post.  The case is Staub vs. Proctor Hospital.  The case actually originated from a USERRA case not a Title VII case but the two both deal with employment law and discriminatory intent.  USERRA is the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.  It is a federal law intended to ensure that persons who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, Reserves, National Guard or other “uniformed services:” (1) are not disadvantaged in their civilian careers because of their service; (2) are promptly reemployed in their civilian jobs upon their return from duty; and (3) are not discriminated against in employment based on past, present, or future military service.

Although Jane’s case is under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the case before the Supreme Court is under USERRA, it is the “no discriminating” part under both acts that the cat’s paw theory applies to so the Supreme Court’s decision could have a good deal of influence on Jane’s case.  The laws themselves are written in a similar fashion as the intent of both Acts is to stamp out discrimination in the workplace.

Staub is a military reservist who has mandatory training and can be deployed at any time.  Staub was terminated from his civilian job with Proctor Hospital.  He sued alleging it was parties who held a discriminatory intent towards him due to his military reservist participation as the cause of him being fired.  The problem is that the Human Resources person who actually terminated him had no discriminatory intent against him at all.  She relied on the information from the parties Staub claims held the discriminatory intent against him.

His case went to through the lower court and a jury was seated and decided in Staub’s favor.  The jury found Proctor Hospital, the employer, did terminate Staub based on an illegal bias and not for the legitimate reason the employer gave.  The employer alleged he was a bad employee and warranted firing and the discriminatory intent held by the other people didn’t matter because the final decision maker had no discriminatory intent at all.  Sound familiar?

Jury awards Staub damages and case is over, well not really it was just beginning.  Proctor Hospital would ask the judge to set aside the jury verdict (yes a judge can overrule a jury more on that in a later post).  The lower court judge does not do it so Proctor Hospital appeals to the middle appellate court.  The appellate court reverses the jury decision and finds for Proctor Hospital so Staub loses.  Staub then files in the Supreme Court arguing that the appellate court erred by relying on case law that is contrary to the actual law.

The Supreme Court doesn’t have to take every case that is presented to them.  The Court picks and chooses the cases it wants to hear.  People misconstrue that to mean that the Supreme Court agrees with the appellate courts decision but that really isn’t the case.  The Supreme Court can only hear so many cases and they try to pick the cases that effect the most people or where the law is misconstrued or misapplied unequally throughout the lower courts.  The Supreme Court chose to hear Staub vs. Proctor Hospital due to the split among the lower courts.

Cat’s Paw Doctrine is a case law driven theory.  This means that lawyers and the Courts have taken the actual law and interpreted it in a way that this legal theory applies to the law.  Seems wrong but actually it is right.  Congress has set the laws but left the gray area so the law could be applied to individual cases with various facts and scenarios.  It is the theories presented in the cases that actually define the law and narrow it down to apply to each individual case.  In Staub’s circuit, Cat’s paw theory has been interpreted by the courts in a way that the employee must show “singular influence”.  The employee has to prove that the person or acts by the person who held the discriminatory intent singularly influenced the decision maker.  If the decision maker relied on anything else when making the decision then Staub loses.

The lower court accepted the jury’s findings.  The appellate court felt the decision maker wasn’t influenced singularly by the person holding discriminatory intent.  The Human Resources decision maker relied on the discriminatory acts but also relied on Staub’s personnel file and work history so no “singular influence”.  Staub believes this is a misapplication of the actual written law.  Staub goes to the Supreme Court not to have his case retried but to get a question answered about the case driven law.  Is the case driven law an accurate reflection of the actual written law by Congress?

Now the Supreme Court is going to answer a single question:

In what circumstances may an employer be held liable based on the unlawful intent of officials who caused or influenced but did not make the ultimate employment decision?

Jane’s Circuit

Jane’s circuit does not interpret Cat’s Paw Theory in the same manner as Staub’s circuit does so it would seem not to matter what the Supreme Court rules.  However, the Supreme Court is the ultimate law of the land so whatever decision they make will alter how all the circuits apply the law not just Staub’s circuit.  The Supreme Court’s decision could end Jane’s case all together in favor for or against her.  More crazy I know.

Either way, clarification from the Supreme Court on the cat’s paw theory is something that was going to have to be done sooner or later.  When the lower courts all apply such varying standards something has to be done.  The laws should be applied more uniformly across the lower courts.  There will rarely be an exact uniform standard as each case has to be decided based on the facts before the court but there should be some uniformity and right now there just isn’t when it comes to the cat’s paw theory.

Jane’s circuit, which is my circuit, uses a causation standard.  Did the unlawful intent cause the termination?  If Jane can prove Skippy was retaliating and his false reports caused the termination she wins.  However, if the employer can show that Marcia and Peter investigated the reports and they all looked legitimate or there were witnesses who agree with the false reports or Jane has a history of the type of behavior Skippy has alleged then the employer is off the hook.

Jane was terminated for 7 different reasons, 6 of those reason all stem from Skippy’s reports.  Only 1 of the 6 has outside witnesses and they don’t confirm Skippy’s reports.  The 7th reason for the termination was disrespectful and irresponsible statements taken from the complaints Jane filed about Skippy’s retaliation.  Jane doesn’t have a history of the behavior Skippy alleges to have occurred.  It all looks good for Jane on the surface.  But first Jane has to prove Skippy was retaliating.

If you recall from the previous article you know that the lawyers for XYZ Co. failed to even mention Jane’s allegations against Skippy when they asked to have her case dismissed.  As you can see now, that is a vital piece of the case.  Without the allegations against Skippy, Jane’s case won’t hold up in court so well.  Can’t really argue cat’s paw theory if there is no monkey in the background using the cat to do his deed.

Now We Wait Or Do We?

Most people think that this is easy.  The lower courts just wait to see what the Supreme Court says and then proceed.  That isn’t how it works.  The lower courts can not come to a stop and just leave cases sitting around until the Supreme Court issues a ruling.  All the cases in the lower courts will continue to go forward under the current law and case driven law.  When and if the Supreme Court rules then the lower courts will decide what to do and how to move forward.

The Effect

The Supreme Court is not deciding if the cat’s paw theory can be used because the Supreme Court has already found “subordinate bias” to be a legitimate claim.  Subordinate bias and cat’s paw theory are the same thing.  What the answer the Supreme Court is going to give is really going to be about what evidence does the employee or the employer need to either succeed or escape liability.  What does the employee have to show the court for the court to hold the employer liable?

The Court could do away with the cat’s paw theory and say it doesn’t matter who the decision maker is at all and the only thing to be considered is whether someone with unlawful intent was involved.  That is very broad though so I doubt they will go that far.  It would make sense to set the standard of what needs to be shown through the evidence.

There is no one definition for investigated thoroughly.  There is no one definition for influenced.  Those things need some kind of framework and standard so the employee and the employer know what to do.  If the Supreme Court is going to allow cat’s paw theory, they most likely will, the lower courts need to know what is the standard.  When the judges of the lower courts look at the evidence they need to be able to determine if that evidence is sufficient to meet the standard.  The lower courts do that now under the different models of cat’s paw theory but are the different models the lower courts use really doing what Congress intended the law itself to do?  That is the real question.

This could result in a major win for employers.  If the Supreme Court rules that it is only the intent of the decision maker it will make it very easy for them to escape liability and not have to concern themselves with retaliation at all.  An employer merely sets up a system where all decisions go through a person who has no interaction with the employee and is unbiased in every way.  I just don’t see this happening as it is very broad as well.  That type of ruling would essentially make the retaliation law a toothless tiger as well.

It would seem more likely that the ruling will set the standard of what needs to be shown by the employee to hold the employer liable.  I listened to the oral arguments of the Staub case and the Justices raised some very good points on both sides.  We can’t hold employers responsible for every single thing especially if the employer is not even aware it is going on.  On the other hand, an employer has a duty to its employees to ensure retaliation and discrimination are not going on as well.  So where is the balance, the middle ground that I am so found of?  Well that is for the Supreme Court to decide.  Whatever they decide will be important for both employers and employees.

The Entire Staub vs. Proctor Hospital Case

The Supreme Court not only hears from each side but also allows briefs from interested parties in support of either side.  If you want to see each sides position and supporting briefs following the links below.

Certiorari Documents:

• Petition
  for certiorari
• Brief
  in Opposition

Briefs on the merits:

• Brief
  for Petitioner Vincent E. Staub
• Brief
  for Respondent Proctor Hospital
• Reply
  Brief for Petitioner Vincent E. Staub
• Brief
  for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
  Organizations in Support of Petitioner
• Motion
  for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief and Brief for the American
  Association of Justice in Support of Petitioner
• Brief
  for the Reserve Officers Association of America in Support of Petitioner
• Brief
  for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
• Brief
  for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, AARP, and Equal
  Justice Society in Support of Petitioner
• Brief
  for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support
  of Respondent
• Brief
  for the Equal Employment Advisory Council in Support of Respondent
• Brief
  for the National Federation of Independent Business, Small Business
  Legal Center in Support of Respondent
• Brief
  for the National School Boards Association in Support of Respondent

In the previous post Can I Quit, I introduced Jane an employee, Skippy her manager, Dan senior upper management official and Marcia upper-management official.  I also introduced the XYZ Co. that they all work for.  Check out the post for the details of the hypothetical case we are discussing.  Here I am going to discuss this doctrine that has evolved in the Courts called Cat’s Paw and a little more about the case.

Cat’s paw is a phrase that came about from poet La Fontaine’s 1679 fable, “The Monkey and the Cat”. Who would have thought controlling law today would be built upon a fable from 1679.  The fable itself is about a little monkey who convinces a cat to pull chestnuts out of the fire.  As the cat pulls each chestnut out, burning his paw in the process, the monkey takes them and gobbles them all up.  In the legal world, cat’s paw was built upon this fable.  In essence, when one person uses another to accomplish his purpose.

In employment law, the Courts are recognizing this Cat’s Paw Theory in an aid to help employees prove retaliation.  However, lawyers being what they are have managed to turn the Cat’s Paw Theory into a way to escape liability as well.  An employee can show it was someone other than the person who made the final decision by arguing Cat’s paw theory.  If the employee can persuade the Court and jury that the decision maker was used by the other person to discriminate or retaliate they can succeed.  On the other side of the coin, if the employer can show that the decision maker made their own independent findings and had no reason to retaliate then the employer can escape all liability even if discrimination and retaliation are proven to have happened by the other person.

Sounds all twisted doesn’t it?  Well it has become just that.  The Courts across the country all handle this theory differently.  It has become such a split that the Supreme Court has decided to hear a Cat’s Paw Theory case to set the record straight, so to speak.

We have laws that specifically dictate that discrimination and retaliation are not allowed.  Title VII covers those discrimination and retaliation laws.  Now Title VII is just one part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The entire act is made up of eleven different Titles.  The goal was to stamp out discrimination.  Retaliation itself would be added later.  Over the years the Civil Rights Act has been amended to add different types of discrimination and retaliation.  The Courts have interpreted the laws covered by the Civil Rights Act and applied them to employers and employees.

In 1991, Congress amended the Civil Rights after an opinion by the Supreme Court that Congress felt was contrary to the intent of the Civil Rights Act.  The thing about Congress is that they try to inact laws to cover everyone and sometimes in doing so they leave so much gray area that lawyers manage to persuade the Courts that Congress’ intent was different from what the written word says.  All laws can be manipulated in this way.  The gray area can always be manipulated and lawyers, well they are astounding at that ability.  One of the reasons people dislike lawyers so much is that the common person reads the black and white words and then is amazed when they aren’t applied like they are written.  The common person finds the lawyers unethical or devious for twisting the laws to win their cases.  When it is for good people are ok, but when it gets murders off or allows employers to discriminate or allows pedophiles back on the street, the common person gets upset.

Jane’s Case

Here is a little recap of Jane’s case.  Jane felt her former supervisor was discriminatory to women and complained to the EEOC informally.  Mediation failed and Jane decided to file a formal complaint with the EEOC.  Jane’s employer had moved her away from the supervisor but later decided to move Jane under the manager’s who oversaw both the supervisor and Jane when the discrimination occurred.  Skippy one of the managers was upset Jane named him in her EEOC formal complaint and had begun taking questionable actions against Jane.

Now we can roughly forget about the discrimination by the supervisor because Jane realized she couldn’t prove discrimination under the law.  Although she believed it was discrimination, the proof she had wasn’t enough to hold her employer XYZ Co. responsible for what had occurred.  All that remains for the Court to decide is whether or not Skippy retaliated by writing up false reports and exaggerating legitimate interactions in a negative light to be used by Marcia to have Jane terminated from her job.

Had XYZ Co. watched over their managers and discouraged retaliation they would be in the clear and there would be no court case at all.  The discrimination charge would have fallen away as being unprovable and that would have been the end.  However, that is not what happened.  Since there was retaliation XYZ Co. still ends up in court even though they are in the clear on the discrimination charges.

Jane complained of Skippy’s actions long before the termination occurred and the senior management official, Dan, felt Jane should be moved away from Skippy.  Dan never investigates the retaliation allegations made by Jane.  Dan simply wants to move Jane away from Skippy.  Now it is possible Dan intended on investigating but Jane was terminated before that came about.  It is possible Dan was doing what any good employer would do and that was separating Jane and Skippy and then investigating.  Dan never speaks up after the termination so we have no idea what Dan was intending to do, we can only assume.

We do know Dan ordered Marcia to explore this transfer and gave Marcia the complaints Jane had filed.  Jane in her frustration had written her complaints in a less than civil manner but had been talking with Dan in the same manner for months, not out of disrespect but out of frustration for the situation going on.  Marcia however saw Jane’s complaints as disrespectful and irresponsible statements and decided to punish Jane instead of transferring Jane.  Marcia went to the Skippy and collected all the information he had and used it to terminate Jane.  However, it wasn’t just Marcia’s decision.  Marcia merely recommended Jane be terminated.  Enter another upper-management official, we shall call him Peter, who actually made the final decision to terminate Jane.

So if you have been following along we have Jane, employee.  Skippy, manager who retaliated.  Dan, senior upper-management official who received Jane’s complaints and wanted her transferred.  Marcia, upper-management official who received same complaints and wanted Jane punished and used Skippy’s reports to do it.  Now Peter, upper-management official who agrees with Marcia that Jane needs to be terminated and signs the actual termination.  Wow a lot of players in this horrid little game.

The Argument by XYZ Co.

XYZ Co. comes in and argues they shouldn’t be liable because Marcia and Peter are unbiased and have no reason to retaliate and Jane can’t prove Marcia and Peter retaliated.  Their lawyer tells the Court the case should be dismissed.  Essentially, their lawyer says that Jane is just a bad employee.  They go further to add that even if Cat’s paw theory applied, Marcia and Peter investigated the misconduct Jane was alleged to have committed so the case should still be dismissed.

Their lawyer fails to mention that the entire termination is based solely on Skippy’s reports.  Skippy the manager that Jane has always alleged was the one doing the retaliating.  Seems a little devious on the lawyer’s part to leave that pertinent fact out when asking the Court through Summary Judgment to dismiss the case entirely.

Jane’s Argument

Jane argues that Skippy retaliated by writing false reports and exaggerating legitimate incidents in a negative light.  She further argues that Marcia failed to transfer her as instructed by Marcia’s superior Dan, giving Skippy even more opportunities to write false reports.  In a twist, Jane also argues that Marcia and Peter are not completely unbiased as XYZ Co. says they are.  Jane argues that Marcia and Peter finding her complaints of retaliation to Dan as one of the causes to terminate her shows they have a bias against Jane for complaining of retaliation.  Dan the most senior upper-management official saw no cause to discipline Jane for the complaints of retaliation she made.

Cat’s Paw Theory

The theory is an odd little duck when it comes to Jane’s case.  Normally, the decision maker is unbiased and in most cases not even aware the employee has an EEOC complaint or has complained of retaliation at all.  The decision maker is completely in the dark to the nefarious activities going on.  The employer escapes liability by showing the court that even if Skippy retaliated the decision maker had no idea the reports were false, Jane had an EEOC complaint or was complaining of retaliation and investigated the reports and found that misconduct had occurred so the employer shouldn’t be liable.

Application of the cat’s paw theory in this case doesn’t really apply in the manner it was intended because the decision maker was aware of Jane’s EEOC complaint and was aware Jane was complaining of Skippy retaliating.  Jane wants the employer held responsible and doesn’t believe the employer should get to use Cat’s paw theory to escape liability.  Jane doesn’t argue that the employer investigated the alleged misconduct, she argues that the decision makers should have investigated the complaints of retaliation before relying solely on Skippy’s reports to terminate her.  Had the decision makers investigated the complaints of retaliation they would have seen Skippy’s nefarious motive to retaliate against Jane and wouldn’t have terminated her.  It is sort of a quasi cat’s paw theory.

The 11th Circuit, which Jane’s case is in, has held that if there is a causation between the decision makers decision and Skippy’s retaliatory acts then she can proceed to a jury to allow the jury to decide.  The 11th Circuit has also held that if the decision maker investigated independently then the employer escapes liability.  Not all Federal Circuits see it the same way.  In addition, there is no standard for what “investigated independently” is.  In some cases, just allowing the employee to tell their side of the story is enough to allow the employer to escape liability.

Jane’s argument is essentially, the decision makers had a duty to investigate the allegations of retaliation before solely relying on Skippy’s reports and since they didn’t they should be held liable if she can prove Skippy was retaliating.

My Take On It

I believe the cat’s paw theory was a good thing for employees.  We all know that it is usually the manager or supervisor that does the offending illegal deed.  Rarely is it some higher upper-management official that has no interaction with the employee.  You would think the Courts would recognize this and stop applying this only the decision maker standard.  Congress wants no discrimination in the work place.  In order to help employees complain of the discrimination to stamp it out, Congress added no retaliating against the employee for complaining.  It is really simple or should be.  If retaliation is a motivating factor in the decision then it should be illegal period.  It shouldn’t be that retaliation is ok as long as the person who signs their name on the termination had no reason to retaliate.

Under this current, only the decision maker scenario, employers could open up retaliation mills in their company.  In XYZ Co. only three people have the authority to be decision makers.  So in effect only three people represent the employer and if the retaliation wasn’t at the hands of one of 3 people then the employer is safe.  Forget about the 18 managers and 42 supervisor who most likely would be the ones to retaliate, they are free to do whatever they want because they have authority to report on the employee but not the final authority to actually terminate.

This is not what Congress intended.  Why would any employee report discrimination if they know they will face retaliation and have no protection because the employer can set up a system where only a select few can be held responsible?  This will discourage employees from reporting discrimination not encourage it.

Congress did give employers some protection.  Congress included a way for employers to escape liability.  If an employer can show they would have take the same action but for the retaliation then the employer is free.  The Courts use a reasonable employer standard.  Now the employer has created this new way to escape liability, one Congress never intended or gave them.  Congress was clear, no retaliation by the employer.  Congress never said no retaliation by the decision maker, the law says no retaliation by the employer.  The lawyers have managed to persuade the Courts that Congress meant it to only be the decision makers.

Next up is a post on the Supreme Court case of Staub vs. Proctor Hospital that involves the cat’s paw theory.

Seriously, can I quit?  What I want to quit is the insanity of the legal world.  Actually, not the legal system but the lawyers who are behind it and who manage to twist the simplest of laws into something other than what they really are.  The lawyers who make the legal system the extremely adversarial process that it is.  The lawyers who use the legal system in unethical manners just to win with no regard for the actual law or right and wrong.  I don’t believe all lawyers are bad, as a matter of fact, I wanted to be one at one time.  The majority of lawyers are good and act in good faith and do what is right but just like every profession there are always bad apples.

Court Case

About three weeks ago, I posted my last post on the site.  It was about a new experience with the whole settlement negotiations involved in my lawsuit.  What I thought would just be a day turned into weeks, mind numbing, annoying, irritating, infuriating weeks.  Thank goodness for the Christmas holidays or it would probably still be going on.  I have a minor reprieve but it is truly minor because now I have to start preparing for a trial.  A trial, mind you, that the judge hasn’t even agreed to yet but he may so we have to prepare for it like he will.

What I am rambling about is this legal process before a trial called Summary Judgment and you thought I was rambling about settlement negotiations.  See it started as settlement negotiations and then morphed into more Summary Judgment proceedings.  So what is Summary Judgment – I will tell you.

Summary Judgment is essentially how the Courts weed out the frivolous or undeserving cases.  Either side can ask the Court to look at the undisputed facts and see that there is no real reason to call in a jury and have a trial.  In my case, the opposing side has made this motion.  Then the other side gets an opportunity to show the Court that there are things in dispute and there is a reason to call in a jury and have a trial.  Sounds simple and it should be simple but it is not.

Summary Judgment is a valuable tool to the Courts because it saves them the time and money of putting on a full trial when there is no reason to because either the evidence doesn’t exist and it is just a bunch of allegations or it is some crazy person wanting to sue Satan for messing with them.  Yes the Satan case is real, a real person actually filed a lawsuit against Satan for messing with his life.  Gotta love the crazy people.  Unfortunately, lawyers have taken the Summary Judgment process and turned it into this weapon to deny legitimate cases from getting in front of a jury by saying there are no facts in dispute when they know there are. Summary Judgment is not meant to be difficult but it seems like it is automatically done just to try to have cases dismissed not because they don’t merit a trial but because the opposing side doesn’t want to go to trial. That was never the intent of Summary Judgment but it is how it is used far too often.

The side that asks for summary judgment just has to say there are no undisputed facts. The other side has to actually produce the evidence to show that there are facts in dispute and that they warrant a trial. This is not always possible especially when the proof is actually the absence of proof. How do you prove something doesn’t exist? If a case does merit a trial but the proof of that is in the non existence of proof on the other side it makes it difficult. Crazy I know. So why didn’t I file for Summary Judgment if the other side has no proof? Because the burden is on me to prove the retaliation occurred not on them to prove it didn’t occur. They may have no way to prove it didn’t occur but that is irrelevant because I have to prove it did occur not them having to prove it didn’t occur.

Hypothetical Case

I don’t think it is right to divulge the exact details of my case so I am going to use a hypothetical case to explain the craziness and then you will understand why I want to quit.  Fact is I don’t want to actually quit but I am a pretty logical person so this crazy convoluted lawyer stuff drives me crazy.

Employee (we shall call her Jane) works for employer (we shall call employer XYZ Co.) in quite good fashion for 4 years.  Life is pretty good, one warning against Jane.  Then Jane is given a new supervisor that hates women and treats them like crap.  Jane complains about the discriminatory treatment.  Supervisor gets pissed and tries to punish Jane for complaining.  Big clash between Jane and supervisor.  Jane registers complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Now XYZ Co. separate Jane and supervisor, investigate the allegations from both sides and render a decision locally.  In addition, Jane and XYZ Co. try to work things out through mediation from the EEOC.  If everything settles then happy days for all and everyone moves on.  That is what a good employer does.  Unfortunately, Jane has a bad employer who gets angry that Jane told the EEOC what illegal stuff was going on at XYZ Co. and the employer tries to dissuade Jane from pursing EEOC complaint by doing more illegal stuff.  {sigh} Silly XYZ Co. if they just left Jane alone and let the EEOC do their job the discrimination case would be decided in XYZ Co. favor.

Fact is, today many cases of discrimination don’t survive and the employer wins.  It is hard to prove discrimination.  However, retaliation claims are on the rise.  An employer can win the discrimination part and lose the retaliation claim.  With the statistics the way they are you would think more employers would separate the two parties, investigate and take action, then let the EEOC do their job and be done with it.  But too many “employers” are retaliating against employees who complain and that is bad.

Back to our hypothetical employee.  Jane and XYZ Co. go through mediation and can’t agree.  Jane then files a formal complaint with the EEOC so they will do a formal investigation and render a decision.  The XYZ Co. upper-management in their infinite wisdom decide to move Jane back under the same managers that Jane was under when the discrimination occurred.  These managers, by default, are dragged into this EEOC process solely because they were the managers over the supervisor and Jane when the discrimination occurred.  They haven’t been accused of wrong-doing but they are relevant and have to be named in the EEOC complaint.

Managers don’t like being included and one manager (we shall call him Skippy) tells Jane he doesn’t want to work with her because she involved him in the EEOC complaint.  People get annoyed when being included so that is understandable but it is what it is and nothing can be done; Skippy was the manager of record so he has to be included.  Jane explains that is all it is but Skippy is still not happy, so unhappy in fact that Skippy starts to punish Jane and make her life miserable in an attempt to have Jane terminated, to make her drop the EEOC complaint.

Jane had 4 years and 5 months of great service with 1 warning.  Then Jane contacted EEOC.  Jane then given a Letter of Reprimand for the clash between the discriminating supervisor and Jane at 4 1/2 year mark.  So 4 1/2 years 1 warning and 1 Letter of Reprimand.  After Jane is moved under Skippy and he makes his unhappiness known, Jane suddenly accumulates multiple disciplinary complaints all issued or alleged by Skippy.  In four months, Jane is hit with 4 disciplinary actions and accused of 8 other violations.  That is 12 different actions/allegations against Jane in 4 months.  Well actually half were alleged from mid February to mid March and the other half alleged all in one day in May.  So the question becomes did Jane just go nuts after 4 and 1/2 years or was the manager retaliating?

Of course XYZ Co. says Jane is just a bad employee and Skippy was just doing his job appropriately disciplining a bad employee.  Jane says it is a bad manager who is just retaliating because he is mad and trying to get Jane to drop her EEOC complaint.  Sounds pretty straight forward but it isn’t.  Skippy wrote up Jane but took no action, essentially just filing Jane’s file with false allegations without even telling Jane.  Jane suspects that the disciplinary actions she got in the first month after Skippy expressed his unhappiness were buds of retaliation.  Jane complains to a senior upper-management official (we shall call him Dan) about Skippy’s activities and Jane’s belief it could be retaliation and that Skippy is trying to get Jane terminated.  Dan turns over Jane’s complaints to a subordinate upper-management official (we shall call her Marcia) to explore transferring Jane away from Skippy to end what may or may not be retaliation.  So far so good but wait.

This is where it gets crazy and where the big problem is for most employees.  Enter Marcia who has no reason to retaliate against Jane, one would think.  Marcia reads the same complaints from Jane that Jane gave to Dan and decides to not explore transferring Jane as instructed by Dan, her superior, but to explore disciplining Jane instead.  Marcia ignores Jane’s complaints of possible retaliation and instead contacts Skippy for any and all allegations of wrong-doing that Jane is alleged to have committed.  Marcia, who seemingly, has no axe to grind and wouldn’t have a reason to retaliate takes all of Skippy’s allegations and terminates Jane.

Enter the Court system.  The law says that no employer may retaliate against an employee for participating in or opposing discrimination in the workplace.  Somehow over time the law has been interpreted to mean that no decision maker can retaliate against an employee.  So the employee has to find a way to prove that the decision maker retaliated not that the employer retaliated.  In a good deal of companies the decision maker is entirely separate from the managers or supervisors who did the retaliating.  This twisted version of the law makes it almost impossible for employee’s to prove they were being retaliated against.  The Courts then came up with this cat’s paw theory to aid employee’s in proving that retaliation was really what motivated the decision maker.  Employers have managed to twist that into a theory that helps them escape liability instead of what it was meant to be, a way for employees to prove retaliation.

Summary Judgment

Back to the Summary Judgment in my case.  Right now the opposing side has said there is no evidence to prove the decision makers retaliated.  The opposing side is aware that my case is similar to the hypothetical case and that it was actually the manager and not the decision makers on their own who retaliated.  Actually, as you will see in the continuing articles, the decision makers are not so innocent.

For Summary Judgment to be appropriate there has to be no facts in dispute over the material issues of the case.  There can be facts in dispute but if they wouldn’t effect the outcome of the case they don’t matter.  Only facts that have an effect on the outcome of the case are relevant.  The opposing side conveniently left out all of the allegations of the manager retaliating when they asked the Court to dismiss the case based on there being no facts in dispute that affect the outcome of the case.

They mention it briefly like they are aware of the allegations but then later in the process change their stance like the allegations against the manager don’t exist.  Then I had to spend weeks trying to figure out what to do to get the real facts in front of the Court so they can see exactly what is going on.  Summary Judgment is a three part process.  Opposing side makes the claim there is nothing in dispute and no reason for trial.  The other side shows where the evidence is that proves there is a dispute and there is a need for a trial.  Then the opposing side gets the final word.

The final word was that the allegations against the manager didn’t exist.  So what to do, what to do, what to do?  It is the final word and the opposing side gets it.  Through weeks of reading case law and legal procedure I found there is a way to address the Court after the final word but it is not guaranteed in any manner.  The Court can allow a response after the “final word” but Summary Judgment is not a paper trial so it is discouraged to keep from going back and forth and treating it like a paper trial.

What Happened To The Settlement?

The settlement conference was beneficial to me but it is also private so I can’t discuss it at all.  We didn’t settle, I can tell you that.  The opposing side had filed their reply but I hadn’t seen it yet.  Upon seeing it I understood completely why they didn’t want to settle.  Without the claims of retaliation by manager they Court would most likely rule in their favor and because they have final word they saw no reason to settle a case when it was just going to be dismissed as far as they knew.

I am not a lawyer and I didn’t know there was a way to reply after the “final word” and I believe the opposing side was counting on that.  Of course I could be wrong and they were proceeding in a completely normal fashion and didn’t have to mention the allegations against the manager at all.  Either way they have been brought to the Courts attention so we just have to wait and see what the Court says now.

Check out the next article to continue reading about the hypothetical case and the cat’s paw theory.

I haven’t commented much on my daily life because well it has been kind of boring filled with numbers and calculations. I know what you are thinking, how can that be boring? But trust me it isn’t all glitz and glamor or even a little glitz and glamor. I started on a new experience which isn’t really exciting but definitely new and interesting for me.

The new experience is one of negotiation. Today, TSA and I started tentative settlement talks. I had to come up with an opening number and it isn’t as easy as you think. There are numerous schools of thought on how to go about it and how to negotiate it out after that initial number is put out there. I wished it to be simple and maybe even convinced myself somewhat it would be simple but truth is it wasn’t.

I don’t believe the judicial system was set up to be a lottery. That actually is not just my belief that is the law but yet daily we hear of settlements that far exceed what it would take to “make a person whole” from the wrong done to them. That is what the judicial system was meant to do, make people whole, put them back to where they would be had the wrong not occurred. The judicial system being used as some kind of lottery seems to happen more and more and the theory of make a person whole is more on paper than the reality. I believe that is destructive to our judicial system and ultimately to us who have to bear the burden of higher insurance rates, loss of funds that could be used for the community, a rise in commercial prices to offset the cost of these lawsuits and more.

Settlements seem to be more about a game of negotiation skills and who is better than about making a person whole. What appears to happen is person asks for 10x {dramatic for effect} what reasonably would make them whole because it is automatic that the other side is going to offer 10x less than what would reasonably make them whole. So now we have this gap in the middle that is fought over by both sides. Each side wanting as much of the gap in their favor as possible and the theory of what would make a person whole seems to go out the window. It really seems to become about who can negotiate well enough to keep as much of the gap in their favor. This is so contrary to the law that it really sullies it and is creating this alternate reality of what the judicial system and Congress ever intended.

Damages

The damages I am actually seeking relate mostly to wages and benefits, I didn’t really seek emotional distress compensation, which I will explain why further along. The back pay part is easy to determine because I was terminated on a date and suffered to the current date. What has been more difficult is this concept of front wages. If I were older it would be easier but as I am younger, it makes it a little harder. Should TSA have to pay forever if they are found to be in the wrong? Who can say with certainty that they would keep a particular job for another 20 some odd years? So what is realistic and appropriate? I do know what my original plans were before I was terminated so I based it on those and now that is open to negotiation.

I also looked at what it would take to make me whole as of today without consideration of the future earnings being affected. If I hadn’t been terminated three years ago, where would I reasonably be today and what would it take to put me there. The number differs from just looking at wages and what I would have worked to had I not been terminated so that is open to negotiation.

Once I could even come up with an answer then it became about how much to ask for in order to play this negotiation game. You can’t just say this is what I would like and would make me whole as your starting number, oh goodness no that would be too easy. If you do that then you start out at a disadvantage and you start out already being in a position to accept far less than what you originally wanted or believed would make you whole. It is one thing to make concessions for the sake of settling but it is another to make concessions for the sake of negotiation game.

I got my number and then I had to take into consideration the odds of going to trial, the odds of winning the trial, the cost associated with going to trial, whether I would appeal if I lost or whether they would appeal if they lost, time and aggravation and just a slew of other things. Then finally you have to add to that number negotiating room so you can play the game and still reasonably come close to what it is believe would make you whole.

All kinds of crazy, if you ask me. I would have loved to just have put out the number I believe would make me whole and why I believe it is reasonable and justifiable. Then have a discussion over the merits and the basis for the amount. If the other side can provide a reason or justification for why the amount isn’t reasonable or justifiable then discuss it and resolve it. But nope we have to do this back and forth thing first even though at the end of the day it will most likely come down to a discussion over the merits and the basis for the amount. It has to at some point unless of course what I am asking for is already less than what TSA has determined they would be willing to pay to settle. Then maybe just maybe we could dispense with all the crazy and just go about settling.

Emotional Distress

I have been asked by quite a few people why I didn’t ask for damages relating to emotional distress as they have seen the distress personally. I can’t go into great detail but it is pretty common knowledge that I am suing for retaliation for EEO participation. I think any person that suffers from employer retaliation could reasonably make a claim for emotional distress. Retaliation was made illegal because it has the effect of discouraging people reporting violations of law or standing up for or supporting someone else who is being violated. I had one lawyer suggest that it couldn’t be retaliation because I was still suing, so it clearly didn’t meet the standard on discouraging me from participating. I found that to be a horrible assertion. I didn’t sue for emotional distress and for a moment I thought I should have just to prove how horrible that kind of assertion was.

In order to prove emotional distress you have to explain it. You can’t just say, “I am distressed”. I didn’t and don’t want to admit in open court that I am no longer the person I was when this ordeal started. That these particular events have had a profound effect on me emotionally, physically, ethically and morally. I didn’t want to admit that I am terrified of getting another job. I go out and look and apply and need a job but am filled with so much relief when I am told I am not hired. I have felt guilty for feeling relieved because I know my kids have suffered by me not having a job and it is wrong of my to be relieved that I can’t get hired. I am terrified of what will happen if I see discrimination or harassment or retaliation occurring or if it happens to me. I am terrified I will turn a blind eye to it rather than say a word and risk what has already happened to me happen again. It is not who I was three years ago but I am afraid it is who I am now and I just don’t want confirmation of that. I don’t want to know for a fact that I would let someone else suffer, not help and just walk away and leave them on their own or that I would just quit rather than say a word. I don’t want to sit in court and have a callous lawyer question my integrity, ethics and morals over this issue. I am having a difficult enough time on my own with those questions.

If someone had told me three years ago that I would be where I am today and feel the way I do and would even consider not helping or not standing up for myself, I would have told them they were crazy. But it is where I am so that lawyer telling me because I continued to sue after I lost everything, this time, proves there was no retaliation is nuts. I am ashamed that I feel the way I do and that I come close to a full on panic attack waiting to hear back about a potential job that I need and when I am told no I am relieved. Retaliation goes far beyond just sleepless nights, excess stress, not eating well, depression and all the other ailments claimed to fall under emotional distress. It doesn’t just discourage, it can change who a person is ethically and morally. I would have never believed that had someone told me that but I am living it so I know it true. I am not a weak person either and have always been strong, stood up for myself, my kids and others and have had support doing so. I can only imagine the profound effect it would have on someone who isn’t very strong or doesn’t have support.

I could have sought damages for emotional distress but no amount of money will fix the way I feel. No amount of money will reverse the damage that has been done. I see no need to put myself through the process of proving the emotional damage exist when it will have no effect on the damage itself and could make it worse. Everyone sees it differently and has to do what is right for them and I have to do what is right for me. Money won’t make this better, them admitting they were wrong or being found guilty won’t make this better. The only thing that could make it better is if it had never happened. Maybe, possibly, in time I will feel differently and maybe I wouldn’t turn a blind eye or walk away but right now I am 99% certain I wouldn’t help and I would walk away and that terrifies me because that isn’t the person I was or the person I want to be. I don’t want to go through the process in court to prove it but for a moment, I took pause and considered that maybe I needed to correct that lawyer’s asinine view and make sure the courts didn’t see that as right in any way. Three years ago, I wouldn’t have even paused it would have been automatic that I would fight to keep that kind of belief from becoming real but I am not the person I was then. It was just a pause and then it didn’t take much for me to let it go.

That scares me and that is the effect retaliation has and that is why Congress made it illegal and wrote the law the way they did. It isn’t about did it stop a person from reporting or pursuing an allegation of civil rights violations, it is about could it dissuade a reasonable person from doing. I am living proof it could dissuade and it has dissuaded because right now, I am 99% certain I wouldn’t say a word but it didn’t stop me from pursuing this claim. The claim I have already suffered for and lost everything for, there is nothing left for them to take or do to me so no reason to drop it now. But a new job, a life rebuilt and being in a better place, I wouldn’t risk again because the price is far to high a price to pay. I despise that I feel that way and I pray in time that will change and I can get back the person I was 3 years ago but I just don’t know if that is even possible.

To The Future

The real settlement talks come tomorrow so that is where I will be all day. If it doesn’t settle then we wait for a judge to rule on the summary judgment motion. Depending on that ruling will determine where it goes next, either appeal or trial. It would be nice to settle tomorrow but the reality is I have been through the worst already. I went through months of not knowing if I could pay my bills and the real threat of losing my home and my vehicle. That is all over now. I paid off my car and have two small loans to pay back to family that helped me and then I will be in a place where TSA could drag this out forever and it won’t affect anymore. It is a good place to be and I am glad I stuck with it and didn’t give up (trust me I considered it several times). If TSA has offered to settle 6 months ago, I would have settled for almost nothing because I was that desperate but I am not anymore and it feels good to know that I am not in that position and I can’t have the situation they created used against me for their benefit.

Well I need to get back to getting organized for tomorrow, what fun, not.  Then I need to get through tomorrow.  After that, I have some plans for decorating for Christmas, have some articles to get formatted and posted to the site and I get to start working on my magazine.  The magazine idea is really exciting to me and it is something I have been wanting to do since January, so a year in the making. It would be great to be able to start a new year with a great new venture.  This year has had a great deal of lows compared to the highs so I am hoping next year will be the exact opposite.

Here is the official definition of opinion as it relates to this scenario:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

I decided that I needed to write this piece because it is important that people know the difference between opinion and fact. I believe it is also important for people to listen to others opinion. You would think that people do know the difference but after years of dealing with the mass general public and now more recently being here dealing with a variety of different people it is clear that not all people do understand.

It was stated that my opinion can be damaging. The fact is, to me, my opinion can’t really be damaging at all, no one’s can because it is mere opinion. You would have to hold true that people routinely accept others opinion’s as fact in order to believe they can do damage. The problem we have is that too many people are doing just that so although her statement is not true, it can be true on some level. I understand her fears but I am not typical when it comes to stating my opinion. Had she really taken the time to listen to what I was saying and how I was expressing my opinion she would have come to that realization but she was so adamant to have her opinion believed to be fact and held as the standard that she didn’t really listen. I find that to be damaging.

I did take pause and consider what she said, had I not I wouldn’t be writing this. I value opinions especially opposing opinions because of the potential they have to expose me to something I may have never otherwise been exposed. If we take the time to listen to others opinions and hear their views we can sometimes learn from them. We don’t have to agree with their opinion or even like their opinion but we should listen to their opinion. I find it awfully wrong to say to anyone, your opinion has potential for damage so keep it to yourself. What one person determines potentially damaging could be the information another person needs to put something in a perspective they had never been exposed to.

I think information is amazing and I think we should try to be informed people, especially as parents. We are raising the next generation so why limit ourselves to our own experiences when we could expose ourselves to experiences of others that we never even thought of or thought of considering at all solely because we didn’t know those other experiences existed. Which brings me back to the question: Is she right that some opinions shouldn’t be expressed due to potential harm?

In my opinion, I don’t think she is right. The world is not full of rainbows and unicorns, everything doesn’t turn out all right in the end and happily ever after is for fairy tales. We need to know about the opposing views and opinions. We need to know what exist out there beyond our experiences. Our children need to be taught that life is not just about the small little island we are raised on and that there is a much bigger world out there. Children and adults need to know that everyone doesn’t see the world the same way and that is OK.

If everyone with an opposing view is told to be quiet then we will never hear anything at all. We will be confined to our little islands of experiences and knowledge and largely remain ignorant to the world around us. We need to share our opinions and listen to others opinions no matter how infuriating they may be to us personally. We never have to agree but we should always listen. Even messages of hate can be beneficial in allowing us to understand their hatred and where it comes from. It could provide an opportunity to have them listen to our opinions and see a different perspective because we did listen to their opinions even though we fervently disagree and wish their opinions didn’t exist the way they do.

The other problem I am having is this overriding sense that one person’s opinion is more valuable or more important or the standard by which everyone should see things. Just the nature of what an opinion is tells us that we can’t put one opinion above another. Neither are fact nor should they be setting the standard for anyone else. We need to take opinions, no matter who they come from, as just opinions. Even the experts, who if you have been following me you know I don’t hold much stock in, are giving opinions. Their opinions are based more on facts and research into a particular subject but they are still just a conclusion based on the way they see the facts and research. Someone else might read the same facts and research and come to a different conclusion. Both conclusions are opinions and valuable to be heard but neither opinion is fact. That is one of the reasons I detest when people point to the experts as having all the answers. They are experts at researching their subject and understanding their subject but at the end of the day, they are drawing conclusions and presenting their opinions.

That is the real problem we face today. People feel the need to have their opinions and their beliefs to be the most important ones and the ones everyone should subscribe to like they are sage wisdom steeped in fact that need to be passed down. I don’t hold my opinion in such high regard. Actually, I don’t hold anyone’s opinion in such high regard. Our opinions are limited by us. Our opinions are based on our experience, our thoughts, our beliefs, our practices, our upbringing and our exposure to the world. No matter how worldly you may think yourself to be, no one knows it all or has experienced it all. Even the experts are relaying their opinion although they like you to believe it is fact solely due to their “expert” status.

As parents, we should always be asking the hard questions of ourselves. Are we doing what is best? Is there a better way? Should we stick to the status quo or majority view solely because it is the status quo or majority view? Does an opposing view have some merit that maybe we haven’t considered? Are we limiting our children to the world we want to exist or exposing them to the world that does exist? These are important questions we should be asking ourselves as parents.

This entire site is based on my opinions and my experiences. I started it to give other parents the opportunity to see and share other experiences that they might not otherwise even thought about or considered. I don’t want a group of people that will solely come and agree with me. I would rather you disagree, voice your opinion and share why you hold the opinion you do. In the last few days there have been some women who have shared their experiences and opinions about breastfeeding in public that I hadn’t considered because I had never experienced it in the same way they had. I respect those opinions and learned something new from those opinions even though their opinions were different from mine. I can’t say that they changed my overall opinion but they gave me a perspective and a better understanding and did change my opinion to some extent.

Since starting this site, I decided to do two things differently from most other sites.

I felt forcing people to register just to express their view was contrary to what I was trying to accomplish. As a user of forums myself; I, at times, have had a view I was going to post but then ran into a lengthy registration process or a requirement to connect with Facebook or some other account of mine. All I wanted to do was make a post, I didn’t necessarily want to belong to the site or be on their mailing list or get their newsletters. I don’t want to be forced to belong to a group I don’t generally agree with. I don’t want to be associated with a group I generally disagree with. I can listen to your views without having to join your group. When that would happen I would just not post. Not because I thought what I had to post wasn’t valuable but because I didn’t like being forced to belong to a group or be associated with a group I generally disagree with just to express my opinion or hear their opinion.

I don’t fault sites that have this as a requirement because it is their site and they are entitled to run it the way they see fit. It is good to have registered users but I felt I would rather have a site that is as inclusive as possible and allow for all types of views to be presented. Every view is important, even the ones we detest could have some value to someone else. People should be allowed to express their views without having to associate themselves with the group itself just to do so. WordPress requires an email so the email requirement is there. I have a little math captcha to combat the spam and it works quite well. This way even people who detest my views in general can still voice their opinion without feeling they have to join my group that they know holds views they detest.

Second, I don’t in general delete comments or post. Moderation is turned on just for post that contain a lot of links and that is more for the safety of everyone than to keep opposing views out. I don’t need someone linking to 20 porn sites and trust me they tried. I am not even against porn but that isn’t what the site is about. I do have a program that filters out the spam and rarely does it catch legitimate post. I have had some pretty nasty comments made about me, others and views in general. So far I have only refused one comment because I found the link to photos of children who had been beaten and the way the photos being portrayed wasn’t beneficial. It is my site and that is my right. The same commentator posted another comment that I disagree with heavily but I don’t want to limit the information people get. I want to put out as much information as possible to help and support parents and people in general in making choices, even if the choice is not the one I would make.

At the end of the day, this is my website and I get to run it any way I see fit. I get to express my opinions regardless of how anyone else feels about them. At the same time, I allow others to do the same thing, regardless of how I feel about their views. We don’t have to agree or even like other people’s views and opinions but we should allow them to exist and not try to stamp out anything that is different from what we believe. You never know, you might get something invaluable from a view that you completely disagree with. You might get a better understanding of why another person holds the views they do. There might be views that are held out of ignorance and the opportunity is there to give them the information to allow them to form an informed view about a subject. We don’t need to put one view above another or deem one opinion is better than all others because the fact is we are limited by our own experiences. Our view may be perfect for us and our experiences and our little piece of the world but that doesn’t mean it is perfect or right for everyone else’s experiences or their little piece of the world.

When I was 15, a boy got mad at me for something, I don’t even remember what exactly, but I was trying to change his views and put mine above his. He replied, “This is my world and you are just in it.” That has stuck with me ever since. He was right it was his world and I was just in it. He didn’t have to do things my way and if I didn’t like it I could stay out of his world. I don’t have to do what you do, I don’t have to agree with what you do and I don’t have to be responsible for what you do. This is my world and it is what I am responsible for. I get to make my own choices about my world and at the same time I am solely responsible for the choices I make. I choose to listen to other opinions and allow them to exist in my world because I find it beneficial in expanding my world. If you don’t feel that way then stay in your own world and stay out of mine because I will allow all views to be presented. I won’t try to force you to run your little piece of the world the way I do and at the same time I won’t allow you to try and force me to run my little piece of the world the way you want me to.

This is my world and you are just in it. I will respect you do things differently, view things differently and make different choices. I will voice my opinion and listen to others. I will engage in debates and try to learn as much as I can to expand my world. I will seek change in others to make my world better based on my views and at the same time recognize that maybe I need to change in order to make my world better. I will not hush and be quiet because someone feels that my opinion is worthless to them or they think it is damaging. My opinion can only cause damage by being shut down, not by being expressed. It is damaging to exclude opinions solely because you disagree or you dislike them. Information is incredible and the more we share and learn about life experiences and different views of the world, the better we are as a people and a world. Keeping people ignorant of any opposing view is what is truly damaging.

Of course this is all just my opinion