home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: soc.singles
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!rohwerwd
- From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
- Subject: Re: nkill
- Message-ID: <1992Nov22.064629.16230@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA
- References: <MARTINC.92Nov11205329@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> <1992Nov16.232936.196@fid.morgan.com> <1992Nov17.021554.28446@adobe.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:46:29 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <1992Nov17.021554.28446@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
- >
- >Suppose we have the following situation. In 1990, employee A who is
- >female, is not given promotion, which is instead given to employee B,
- >a male who was much less qualified than A. Despite this clear-case of
- >sex discrimination, A stays with the company. In 1992, the same
- >position becomes available again. However, this time, employee C, a
- >male who is much more qualified than A is also in the running for the
- >promotion. Should A be granted preferential treatment and be given the
- >promotion over C (who is better qualified) because of the
- >discrimination against her in the past?
- >
-
- No. C should be promoted because C is better qualified. A should
- have filed suit, gone to A's manager's boss or looked for other work
- within or outside of the company to rectify A's situation.
-
- --
- +----------------------------------------------------------------+
- / Keep Abortion Legal and Safe. Reduce the Deficit. /
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
- / // W. David Rohwer // Amiga UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
- | \X/ Go A's! \X/ 3000UX Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM /
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
-