Friday, September 7, 2012

Joel Young Makes His Return, Animal-Style

ALAMEDA COUNTY | Although many believed former 18th Assembly District candidate Joel Young was out-of-work during his disappointing run in the June primary, he is not now flipping burgers at a well-known burger joint these days. Instead, he is an attorney for two Oakland residents who allege racial and age discrimination against In-N-Out Burger.

“We believe individuals that are applying for store associates and custodial positions at In-N-Out burger. Certain individuals are being discriminated against by their age, race and or color,” Young told NBC. Young is a partner at the Tidrick Law Firm in Berkeley, according to its Web site.

The suit filed last Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court alleges two African American men from Oakland, both over 40 years old applied for positions at the noted West Coast burger chain last June and were denied employment last month. They alleged the reason was their race and age.

The suit is receiving quite a bit of press since in the last day and marks a return to the public sphere for Young, whose campaign for the Assembly this spring, once promising over a year ago, nosedived after allegations he struck his girlfriend in the face in March 2011.

A rash of negative mailers by independent expenditure groups followed and led to a third-place finish in the primary to winner Rob Bonta and runner-up, Abel Guillen.


Probably a tough road to prove the racial discrimination charge, but I'd bet they do discriminate against those over 40 and 50 and 60 if they apply.

However I was unaware that age discrimination was illegal in hiring at such locations.
I've heard of lawsuits about layoffs based on age, as companies try to pair down veteran higher paid workers, like at TV stations.

So, anyone know if its legal to discriminate based on age when hiring?
Seems there must be something or else he wouldn't have included that.

By MW:

It is an interesting headline, and especially since a lot of lawyers by no stretch of the imagination could be considered decent human beings, BUT THEY ARE DEFINITELY CREATURES.

In fact from now on rather than referring to lawyers as practitioners of the law, and since so many of them are practitioners of breaking, laughing at, and spitting the law, let's instead refer to them as lowlifes, criminals, pathological liars, alcoholics, sleazy creatures, and drug addicts infesting the law and the legal system.

Steven, how is it animal style...inside joke?

FROM: The animals at the farm and the creatures at the zoo.

TO: Steven Tavares

Based on the headline of this article, it seems to us that you are implying: one, Joel Young, and who is a lawyer, has recently acted in a disgusting manner; and two, animals are lower forms of life.

Well, we would like you to know that comparing us to lawyers we would consider to be an extreme and unforgivable insult. In fact while for many years some people have been referring to lawyers as snakes, however the snakes as the zoo also consider that to be an extreme insult.

2:13. go to in-n-out and ask for an animal style burger. you will get it then.

Or animal style fries-- those are amazing.

whatever happened with his spitting incident? didnt he spit on an assistant to Kaplan?

The title is just somewhat inappropriate. As for the man himself, he did behave in a horrible manner.

Post a Comment