

Oracle denies fair wage because he makes, "good money for an Indian." - griff1986
http://cis.org/north/plucky-l-1-irishman-fired-us-firm-protecting-l-1-indian-national

======
dalke
Dupe from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7057353](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7057353)
.

A relevant EEOC case law is likely Moyo v. Gomez 40 F.3d 982 (9th Cir.).
Quoting from
[http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html](http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html)
:

> Refusal to obey an order also constitutes protected opposition if the
> individual reasonably believes that the order makes discrimination a term or
> condition of employment. For example, in one case a court recognized that a
> correction officer's refusal to cooperate with the defendant's practice of
> allowing white but not black inmates to shower after work shifts constituted
> protected opposition. Even if the inmates were not "employees," the
> plaintiff could show that his enforcement of the policy made race
> discrimination a term or condition of his employment. Thus, his refusal to
> obey the order constituted opposition to an unlawful employment practice.

In short, if someone in good faith protests about what appears to be illegal
workplace discrimination based on national origin, and that person is fired
shortly thereafter, then the company has the burden to show that it firing
wasn't an illegal form of retaliation.

The comment "without going through the normal termination procedures used by
Oracle" is there as suggestive that this firing was a form of retaliation.

I don't think people know enough about EEOC law to know what their rights are
in the workplace.

