AutoZone fined $185 mil in discrimination case

[Tecumsehsbones]

The 'authority' that is selected to mete-out the punishment is a systemic consideration. My personal opinion doesn't really count here, however, I could see select merits in both systems.



I am not being facetious here, but who says it was the Corp that empowered him?

OK, I'll resist the temptation to be facetious myself. The corporation empowered him to discriminate in hiring and firing when it gave him the authority to hire and fire.

Could one also assess responsibility to the Ministry? His upbringing via familial, academic or community influences? How about limit it to this guy being an idiot and assess it to him as an individual?

The Corp provided a venue, but not a mandate to perpetuate these actions.

So, in my eyes, the question remains relative to how broadly one casts the net, or does this warrant a more limited scope of responsibility.

It's called, variously, "master/servant," the "law of agency," or "vicarious liability." The principle that the actions of a servant, working within the scope of his employment, are attributable to the master. There are any number of reasons for this, two being to motivate the master to monitor and control his servant and to deprive the master of his ability to hide behind his servant when the servant takes illegal or tortious actions for the master's benefit. The principle goes back to the middle ages, and the collective wisdom of half a millennium of law has decided it's worthwhile, which is why it has been refined, but never overturned by judges or legislatures.

But (back to snark here) I'm sure you know better.

 

[captain morgan]

It's called, variously, "master/servant," the "law of agency," or "vicarious liability." The principle that the actions of a servant, working within the scope of his employment, are attributable to the master. There are any number of reasons for this, two being to motivate the master to monitor and control his servant and to deprive the master of his ability to hide behind his servant when the servant takes illegal or tortious actions for the master's benefit. The principle goes back to the middle ages, and the collective wisdom of half a millennium of law has decided it's worthwhile, which is why it has been refined, but never overturned by judges or legislatures.

But (back to snark here) I'm sure you know better.

Okay, okay... I didn't need you to go all Matlock on me.

(snark)

 

[shadowshiv]

It sounds to me that AutoZone was quite vile in their actions, and while I doubt she will get even close to that total amount, she will probably (and justifiably) get a hefty chunk of change due to a settlement.

 

[Ludlow]

Boo on Autozone

 

[EagleSmack]

 

[petros]

Damn you racist material auto parts!