You might not have observed them because the companies you were associated with were following the law and because you've not researched the topic.
I listed several standards which are illegal. It is illegal to prohibit someone to wear a cross necklace while at work (unless it directly interferes with the job). It is illegal to have mandatory maternity leave rules. It is illegal to say that only woman can be cashiers and men can be stock the shelves. These have all gone to court, and been found to be discriminatory and illegal workplace standards.
In your view of reality, have you read any of the court cases involving Title VII violations? I listed several for you to review. Is your view of reality influenced by documents like the EEOC compliance manual?
"Public discussion of sexual discrimination is not what this woman did"
Even if this wasn't a "public discussion of sexual discrimination", it can still be a protected action. As I pointed out, the 2nd Circuit affirms that people may "write critical letters to customers." That's a protected action even if it isn't 'public discussion', so insisting on both "public" and "discussion" is too restrictive.
So you can't argue that since this didn't fall under your definition of public discussion, therefore it isn't protected. You have to show how what occurred wasn't a protected action under Title VII.
"Unless you think that these men were sexually discriminating against Adria when they were talking about the male speakers dongle."
The law doesn't require that the discriminatory behavior be directed towards the person making the complaint. Nor does the law exclude women from complaining about sexist jokes directed towards men. Your objections do not appear to valid exclusions under the law.
You say "This has nothing to do with sexual discrimination or harassment". The law doesn't require that the claims of sexual discrimination or harassment actually be true. Only that the person who made the claim was well-intentioned and that at least one reasonable person would make the same claim. If there a reasonable person can make the same claim, then the complaint is protected under Title VII - even if it was found to be non-discriminatory.
You can say that it's against some unspecified company policy, but the EEOC points out that that reasoning can't be used as pretext. Quoting from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB :
> Even if the respondent produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, a violation will still be found if this explanation is a pretext designed to hide the true retaliatory motive. Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity\52.
Do you really think she would have been fired had there not been "heightened scrutiny"?
I listed several standards which are illegal. It is illegal to prohibit someone to wear a cross necklace while at work (unless it directly interferes with the job). It is illegal to have mandatory maternity leave rules. It is illegal to say that only woman can be cashiers and men can be stock the shelves. These have all gone to court, and been found to be discriminatory and illegal workplace standards.
In your view of reality, have you read any of the court cases involving Title VII violations? I listed several for you to review. Is your view of reality influenced by documents like the EEOC compliance manual?
"Public discussion of sexual discrimination is not what this woman did"
Even if this wasn't a "public discussion of sexual discrimination", it can still be a protected action. As I pointed out, the 2nd Circuit affirms that people may "write critical letters to customers." That's a protected action even if it isn't 'public discussion', so insisting on both "public" and "discussion" is too restrictive.
So you can't argue that since this didn't fall under your definition of public discussion, therefore it isn't protected. You have to show how what occurred wasn't a protected action under Title VII.
"Unless you think that these men were sexually discriminating against Adria when they were talking about the male speakers dongle."
The law doesn't require that the discriminatory behavior be directed towards the person making the complaint. Nor does the law exclude women from complaining about sexist jokes directed towards men. Your objections do not appear to valid exclusions under the law.
You say "This has nothing to do with sexual discrimination or harassment". The law doesn't require that the claims of sexual discrimination or harassment actually be true. Only that the person who made the claim was well-intentioned and that at least one reasonable person would make the same claim. If there a reasonable person can make the same claim, then the complaint is protected under Title VII - even if it was found to be non-discriminatory.
You can say that it's against some unspecified company policy, but the EEOC points out that that reasoning can't be used as pretext. Quoting from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB :
> Even if the respondent produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, a violation will still be found if this explanation is a pretext designed to hide the true retaliatory motive. Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity\52.
Do you really think she would have been fired had there not been "heightened scrutiny"?