A. Azimi, an Afghan-born Muslim who lives in Maine, successfully sued his employer, a meat-processing company, for discrimination. The jury in a US district court decided that Azimi had been subjected to an enivornment "hostile to his race, religion or ethnic origin" by the company. Nevertheless, he was not awarded any damages. Azimi appealed the ruling, but had his appeal rejected by the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now the US Supreme Court has refused to hear out the case (Associated Press).
So what is the point of finding the company guilty of exposing Azimi to a hostile environment if it is not actually meant to compensate the victim?
2 comments:
Unfortunately, we all have to deal with comlications and tough situations at work.
For example, health care workers, who deal with drug addicts, are being insulted and threatened routinely. If each time they go to court and demand financial compensation, they all would be millioners.
Meat plant is not exactly the right place for sensitive people. The nature of work itself suggests harsh environment. It was Mr. Azimi's choice to stay in that environment for many years. It was also his right to defend his dignity. But he has no right to demand money.
I'm afraid I don't agree. A jury found the company guilty of placing Mr Azimi in a hostile environment. That means the company did something wrong. If that is the case, Azimi should be compensated for the difficulties he went through.
Health care workers might get offensive treatment from some of their patients, but what would be truly unacceptable is if they were mistreated by their management. This was the case with Azimi, and I believe he is fully entitled to damages. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court does not see it that way.
Post a Comment