Female CEO says white males can't sue her because they are not a "protected class"

[davidn3600]

The female chief executive officer of Archie Comics is being sued for gender discrimination by her male employees.

Nancy Silberkleit’s lawyers claim the suit is baseless because the employees, all white men, don’t belong to a protected class. The five employees — including Archie president Mike Pellerito and editor-in-chief Victor Gorelick — claim that Silberkleit used “gender as a weapon” to degrade them, for example, by refusing to call them by their names and instead referring to all of them as “Penis.” They also accuse her of frequently yelling “Penis! Penis! Penis!” in staff meetings.

According to court records, “(p)laintiffs fail to allege that any such comments were directed at any of the plaintiffs in particular, or they could cause extreme emotional distress even if they had been.”

But the employees contend that “the word ‘penis’ became somewhat of a campaign slogan and her preferred method of referring to employees in lieu of their names.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/03/archie-comics-ceo-claims-she-cant-be-guilty-of-gender-discrimination-against-employees-because-white-males-arent-a-protected-class/

[Fumesucker]

1. She sounds like a dick

[rock]

52. And you don't need a penis to be a dick

cf. Former VP Cheney.

[CFLDem]

2. Lol

Maybe it's the third grader in me, but I'd just laugh with her if she called me that.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. But that's the problem.

It might all be fun and games until there is some other beef... and then the lawyers get involved.

I used to work with a woman who liked to goof around and play grab-ass with our office that consisted of more than a handful of gay men (me being one of them). There was a lot of butt grabbing and breast grabbing.

I would steer clear of it like the plague because I have seen how these things devolve once someone decides to make an issue.

Anywhoo, she ended up taking a branch manager position at a large retail mortgage lender. And took some of her buddies with her.

One of her employees lied to a customer and "floated" their jumbo loan with the hopes of making more spread for himself. It ended up costing like $18k to close the, now underwater, loan at the customer's expected rate. They closed at the customer's rate because she could prove she requested a lock even though the loan officer lied. So my friend back-charged $18k worth of the shady loan officer's commissions. He was incensed that the branch didn't eat the deficit like they had done in the past.

Then the shit hit the fan.

She got called on the carpet with a "hostile work environment" claim, lost her job and couldn't even get unemployment.

What did her in? "That cake looks like a giant dick!"

The loan officer and one of his buddies were the witnesses. She couldn't deny it because she said it. And no amount of "but but but" would sway the HR people or their attorney.

[nxylas]

3. Bullshit

I worked for a state agency that enforced anti-discrimination law, and it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. The term "protected class" does not refer to specific groups of people, but the categories in which it is illegal to discriminate (race, gender etc).

[SkyDaddy7]

4. Thanks...

I thought that did not sound correct.

I agree with the other commenter, "She sounds like a DICK!" LOL!

[MADem]

7. That is my thought too--if you're being singled out for your gender or your race, no matter if

you're the "societal majority" you are still being singled out.

I couldn't figure out why this idiot hadn't been tossed out on her ass by the board of directors by now...!

[JDPriestly]

10. Right! Gender discrimination is the problem, not just discrimination against women.

At least in California, that's how the law reads.

[Tanuki]

15. She hasn't been tossed out because she inherited a 50% stake in the company from

her late husband, whose dad co-founded the company. In other words, she isn't CEO because she earned the position or worked her way up to it in the first place. It sounds like an extremely dysfunctional situation.
..."Silberkleit is the widow of Michael Silberkleit, the son of Archie co-founder Louis Silberkleit. Her Co-CEO Jon Goldwater is the son of co-founder John L. Goldwater, and half-brother of Richard Goldwater. Michael Silberkleit died in 2007 and Richard Goldwater in 2008, leaving Nancy Silberkleit and Jon Goldwater as co-CEOs. By most accounts, it's been a difficult -- even untenable -- situation from the start, with Silberkleit, as disputed co-executor of her late husband's estate, controlling a 50-percent stake, while Goldwater owns 25 percent of the company’s shares and represents the other 25 percent held by the estate of his late brother, leaving the board of directors deadlocked on many issues."...
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=48257

[JI7]

9. right wingers always claim it means gays, females, minorities etc get special

treatment .

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. Exactly correct ...

what most don't seem to understand ... every person is a member of at least 5 "protected classes."

[Hekate]

5. Spoken like a clueless CEO

She's not only a dick in a dress, she doesn't know the law.

[JI7]

6. her arguments sound like the bs that come from right wingers

how they claim minorities get special treatment.

[JHB]

8. I'm sure that's the argument her lawyer is making...

...because there's not much else to go on to get the case dismissed.

[leftynyc]

11. I hope they take her to the cleaners

She's a menace to the workplace.

[merrily]

20. Or, maybe the plaintiffs are the menace. Too soon to know.

[leftynyc]

22. I'm assuming since there are

multiple reports of this behavior that she indeed refers to men as penises. Unacceptable under any circumstances.

[merrily]

26. Faulty assumption, when potential for money is involved.

Of course, the behavior described is unacceptable, but that is not the issue.

The issue is whether she did it. She may have, she may not have. We have no way of knowing.

All we know at this point is is that she has been accused in a lawsuit in which plaintiffs hope to collect money if they win.

Since when does the left assume anyone accused, civilly, as in this case, or criminally, must be guilty?

[davidn3600]

34. If it was a man being accused, I doubt many would be defending him either

A woman accusing a man is usually believed right off the bat.

But I think what's causing the big headlines is how her lawyers are claiming that because it's white men that are the alleged victims, they can't bring a discrimination lawsuit. It seems the lawyers are saying that it's OK for a woman to do such acts against men.

[Ikonoklast]

48. It also seems they are avoiding the real issue, and are trying to deflect away from it.

Looks like they concede that her ridiculous behavior is a given, there might be too many witnesses to impeach.

[renie408]

36. If she didn't do it, wouldn't her defense be "I didn't do it.", not

"You can't sue me."?

[leftynyc]

39. You must be new here

Judgments are made all the time before any evidence is put forth. I suspect if the genders were reversed, it would be quite a different story.

[merrily]

45. My posts don't change based on the gender of the accused.

[leftynyc]

49. You aren't the only person on this board (n/t)

[Savannahmann]

12. Nobody called her on her behavior before

She thought it was OK to do it. Now, the court will explain it to her and it will cost her a lot of money to learn the lesson.

[JackInGreen]

13. I have next to no doubt that someone has said SOMETHING

just not in an official or occupational capacity. I think even if someone HAD said something they would have been dismissed as 'bitter white men' and not taken at all seriously, or feared same.

[merrily]

19. Is the accuser, who stands to win money by suing in this instance, always truthful and the

defendant always guilty?

Or is your post more about other issues?

[Savannahmann]

23. Look at the proponderance of evidence

Several individuals have joined the lawsuit. Five men are suing. So those guys, five of them, are willing to risk their careers to call this one superior on the issue. I grant you that it isn't settled yet, but it looks to me like she did it. I'm not saying that because she is a woman, and they are men. I'm saying that because five people are the plaintiffs of the suit, five. They are listing nearly every other employee of the company as witness's. They would be beyond foolish to do so if there wasn't any truth, and while I can believe there are groups of foolish individuals, we have Congress as an example, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that everyone in the group is a fool. Not just one, every single one.

Then there is the defense of the one accused. Her first reply is that white males are not a protected class, and therefor can't file a lawsuit. That tells me she knew what she was doing, and felt she could get away with it because no one would side with a white male if he complained. Later she claims she was usually traveling, and hardly ever in the office anyway. But she's asking for the suit to be dismissed not because she was not in the office, but because White Males are not a protected class.

That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what equality is, and what EEO is all about. EEO regulations don't create protected classes, they prevent harassment of everyone. Here are the protected classes. If you have a race, a gender, a religion, or a ethnicity. Every one of us have at least three of those, and it has been argued that even those who have no religion have a religious belief. Sexual orientation is being added to the list, but that is another discussion.

So those men are protected, and while she is correct that it is unusual for white men to file a lawsuit, she is mistaken if she thinks that is because they are the authorized by law victim class. They aren't. A hate crime can be done against anyone, or by anyone. Harassment can be done by anyone, or to anyone.

So it is at this time five against one, and while we have no idea what the other employees will say, it is telling that the CEO is demanding that the suit be dismissed based upon the race and gender of the plaintiff, the alleged victim.

[merrily]

25. LOL, that's not evidence.

The case just started. There is no evidence of anything, except that she's been sued.

I'm not saying she's innocent. I'm saying it's way to early to form an opinion.

As far as five people suing for money, not the first time and won't be the last.

[Scootaloo]

33. Well, her response isn't "you're full of shit," it's "you can't do that because you're white men"

So i think the accusation has some merit. Whether it holds up in court, well, who knows.

...Do people still buy Archie comics?

[kcr]

42. I agree

That doesn't seem like the response one would give if they were innocent.

[merrily]

46. According to the article, she personally does deny the charges.

The "protected class" bit is obviously lawyer speak.

As I posted upthread, the story is so badly written, we can't tell much about anything.

[hughee99]

61. I don't think it's too early to form an opinion for someone that's not on the jury.

People have opinions all the time for things that haven't been proven. Given NO facts at all, one can form an opinion based on nothing. Given the limited facts of this article, one can form an opinion based on the number of people in the suit, the number of witnesses, and the defense that the defendant is putting forth.

I think it's too early for anyone to be arguing that X or Y definitely happened (as they may end up looking like a fool if new information arises), but it's not too early to have an opinion.

[merrily]

62. Why do you think someone who forms an opinion at this stage is deemed unfit to be a juror?

I don't understand how you think it's too early to know what actually happened, but not too early to assume that the woman is definitely guilty as charged (alleged).

[hughee99]

63. Probably not necessarily unfit, but generally they ask if you know anything about the case

and if you've formed any opinions about it. Since information presented in a newspaper can be biased, untrue, or selective, it might be unfair to someone's case if jurors are forming opinions based on such information.

[merrily]

64. They are dismissed--sometimes very angrily by the judge--if they say they've formed an opinion.

that is being unfit to serve on the jury.

[hughee99]

65. I was actually thinking of the jury selection phase,

where normally no one usually get's pissed if a potential juror has formed an opinion, the just dismiss them and move on to the next candidate. I assume there's no jury seated for this case yet.

[merrily]

66. I was talking about the jury selection phase.

Once, when I was called to jury duty, the judge was so livid in dismissing a juror who, during the jury selection phase, admitted to having formed an opinion. The person was humiliated.

I was terrified that they might get to me and I might foul up somehow and go through something similar.

I've also seen similar things happen during televised jury selections.

[hughee99]

68. I've been through jury selection a few times

once on a relatively well publicized local trial, and saw several dismissed for forming opinions without any issue. I guess that depends on the judge, or the kind of day they're having.

[merrily]

73. Still unfit to serve on the jury, whether dismissed cordially or harshly.

[ReRe]

14. .

(At least that was my first reaction.) On second thought, could this be a case of sexual harassment?
Seriously, she sounds like a royal asshole.

[merrily]

18. Why are you assuming that the plaintiffs are truthful and she's a liar?

She denies behaving that way.

[ReRe]

28. Okay... turn it around...

... could be they have sexually harassed her in the past and she turned the table on them and now they are squawking like stuck pigs. Wonder what happened to her power to just fire them, if they did harass her or if they aren't doing their jobs? The article leaves allot to the imagination.

[merrily]

47. Agree. The Raw Story article is poorly written.

[christx30]

29. I'm inclined to believe the

plaintiffs in this case. Her defense was not "that's absurd. I've said no such thing. That's stupid and you're making it up." Her defense is "you can't sue for this behavior because you're a white male."

Big difference.

[merrily]

27. It could be allegedly creating a hostile environment in the workplace.

Without Googling, and I don't want to, I don't know if hostile environment is the same as sexual harassment, or only similar.

[FreakinDJ]

16. I don't think her argument will hold water in court

[merrily]

17. The story does not give enough info for much beyond knee-jerk reactions.

Which statute are they suing under? The wording is everything.

Example: https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/understanding-workplace-harassment-fcc-staff

And the issue is not whether they can sue her, but if they can win their lawsuit.

[Laelth]

30. Spot on.

If it's the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we're talking about, she's right, I think, unless this is an attempt to change the law (which it might be). We allow reverse-discrimination suits on the basis of race, but I have not yet seen a reverse-discrimination suit on the basis of gender succeed.



-Laelth

[merrily]

56. I just found this.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm

[merrily]

21. Gee, look at all the alleged left on this thread, assuming accusations = guilt.

She may well have done these things.

or not.

[Laelth]

31. Even if she did do these things ...

... it's probably not actionable under current Federal law.

-Laelth

[Eleanors38]

41. It was all those zipper... I mean Zimmy threads!

[LanternWaste]

53. Courts decide guilt. Posters have benign and inconsequential opinions.

Courts decide guilt. Posters have benign and inconsequential opinions. Two wholly separate concepts.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

67. You're all over this thread attempting to exonerate this CEO

While it's obviously true that everyone has to have their day in court, it's curious that you're expending lots of energy letting people know she may be innocent of all charges. We get it. But it's not likely. And you appear for all the world to be pursuing an agenda that refuses to look at probabilities.

[merrily]

72. Put on your reading glasses. Or thinking cap. Not one post I made said she was innocent, not one.

Agenda? LOL!

[nxylas]

69. It's true that she's innocent until proven guilty

However, most of the comments in this thread are in response to the claim that "white males are not a protected class". Which is bullshit whether she did the things she's accused of or not.

[cer7711]

24. Terrible Misunderstanding! Her lisp caused her to be misunderstood . . .

. . . while earnestly calling for, "Peanuts! Peanuts! Peanuts!"

In a related story, an East-coast CEO defended his cries of "Vagina! Vagina! Vagina!" as a triumphal monologue celebrating the mystery of Woman.

[quaker bill]

32. She confuses a couple of concepts

As a middle aged white male, I am not a member of a "protected class". This does not mean that I cannot be harassed or wrongfully terminated by an ignorant supervisor. My case would at most be a little harder to make, but I could make a case without this status, litigate, win, and be compensated for damages.

[Major Nikon]

71. You are a member of a "protected class" just as much as she is, if not more.

Discrimination based on gender works both ways. Women are no more protected under civil rights laws than men are (pregnancy is the only exception).

If you are over 40, you are in a "protected class" based on age.

Your religious preference identifies you as a "protected class" even if you are an atheist.

Disability is a "protected class" and can apply to all sorts of medical conditions.

[CorrectOfCenter]

35. Not The Onion?

Wow.

[JudyM]

51. LOL, sure seems straight off the page of that. nt

[Blue_Adept]

37. This has been going on for years. It's not new. Linkage.

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/20507.html

[B Calm]

38. Sounds like she has a penis envy problem. She could have a sex change

operation!

[HappyMe]

40. Well isn't she just the sweetest thing.

Take her royal dick-hood to the cleaners. Harassment and discrimination applies to both genders.

[Capt. Obvious]

43. More from the lawsuit

Plaintiffs Reggie Mantle and Jughead Jones claim that they were continuously passed over for promotions in favor of female employees such as Betty Cooper and Veronica Lodge.

As part of the case, Betty's diary may be subpoenaed as evidence.

[Logical]

44. Lol, good one! nt

[FSogol]

50. Ironically, "Penis" is the one word you can't say in an Archie Comic.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. While I haven't read the Defense pleadings ...

I hope two things: first, that the defense argued more than the excerpts show; and secondly, that Silberkleit's attorneys are current in their malpractice insurance coverage.

These, on their face, are losing arguments ... that will likely end in a big loss and sanctions (to the attorneys).

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Here's the Guardian's take on the topic

http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/dec/03/archie-comics-nancy-silberkleit-penis

On the one hand, I'm interested to know if the lawyer's defense has any merit?

I suspect it doesn't, and that her behavior has created "a hostile work environment which alters the conditions of her subordinates employment"

I don't think that sexual harassment laws have an asterisk *

* - unless the target is a white guy.

[SusieQ01]

59. May be a ploy

This woman has actually been slapped with a bunch of lawsuits since she took over for her dad. All have eventually been thrown out. Looks like it may just be another ploy. Doesn't really have anything to do with what her lawyer said, though. That was odd.

[BainsBane]

60. That's bullshit. Men can and do sue for sexual harassment

The law governs behavior and is not dependent on being part of a protected class.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. A better defense would be to claim

that she's just really, really bad with names.