So because I didn't say something was off limits then I must be condoning it? Brilliant. Tying someone to a goalpost most certainly violates some laws. If someone chose to they could probably request those responsible be charged with unlawful imprisonment. I am sure labor laws could be looked at also. The question is how much someone wants to deal with before making an issue of it and then how the legal system would handle it. What you are failing to address is the alleged repeated actions of Incognito. We are not talking about one incident and that is what is key in many similar cases. I'm still waiting for you to explain why a locker room is not a workplace environment.
Because I have common sense and don't view things(especially an NFL locker room) through the lenses of an attorney. If you can't differentiate the locker room vs an office then there's zero reason for us to continuing to go back and forth on this.
That fact that you can't comprehend that the place where someone works is their workplace tells all we need to know.
The fact you cant comprehend that football is a unique workplace tells all we need to know. Lets continue shall we. Is on the field also considered "the workplace?" Is trash talking a form of harassment? Are players potentially risking legal action by saying naughty words on the field of play? What about hits? Can that be considered assault too? Do tell. I mean since football is "the workplace" all rules apply and all. What about DWI's? Pot? Arrests? if its "the workplace" you're gone. In football, you're suiting up.
Continue? Why am I going to waste my time when you still don't get it that it does not matter is a workplace is unique, regular or on the moon they are all still places of work. You obviously have not bothered to look into the labor law you seem to be trying to argue about otherwise you would not be bringing up hits on the field. And DWI's, pot and arrests automatically gets someone fired? Really now. I'm done wasting my time with you.
You keep on talking in circles so it's extremely difficult to follow you. You have still yet to answer if the football "workplace" extends to in the field of play. You seem to be a self proclaimed expert in labor law so please so tell. Also, wouldn't Martins threat to murder Incognitos entire family also violate these harassment laws even if they were in the moon?
Some people don't think logically. Doctor tests patient's reflexes by hitting patient's knee with hammer. Patient's knee responds to hammer by kicking the doctor. Conclusion: Patient is violent and uncooperative. Incognito constantly harasses Martin. Martin attempts to once "participate" in what his teammates consider "normal behavior". Conclusion: They're both terrible people. How about if you have one accounting firm visiting another accounting firm. Bob from Accounting Firm A verbally harasses Steve from Accounting Firm B. Conclusion: Steve should file a complaint against Accounting Firm B for harassment. All of this makes sense to Incognito apologists. Disappointingly, those attempting to nitpick here fail to acknowledge the difference between union (like the NFL) and non-union.
Circles? I'm sorry that I did not spell it out for you that, yes, the football field is a workplace. I thought that the half dozen or so times that I mentioned the workplace would have been enough for you. I may not be an expert in labor law and I certainly never proclaimed to be but it is obvious that you have trouble grasping simple concepts such as what a workplace is and this is the reason I am done with this.
If you're trying to put together an NFL football team and enforce day to day cubicle workplace laws- you wouldn't have a team. It's impossible. You'd have to fire someone every day.
According to this random person I engaged in a discussion with, that's the way the law is. Therefore, that's the law. How are you gonna defend that?
problem is the law doesn't require the harassment to take place over an extended period of time, so your argument fails on that criteria alone from a legal standpoint. extended harassment may make a stronger case in court, but it isn't required for the behavior to be harassment and create a hostile work environment. on-field during a game is as much a workplace as practice, so either you have to take the position that all trash talk is offensive and hostile, regardless of context, or that context can deem trash talk not offensive and aimed at creating a hostile work environment. the result would be the elimination of any trash talk on the field, in practice, etc if you take the former. if you take the latter, you have to evaluate the entire context of the situation, which includes the relationship between the two players, not simply cherry pick simply what supports the argument you want to make and ignore anything that disputes it.
