In addition to the race discrimination case Trump settled with the DOJ in the 1070’s and the Chicago sex harassment and retaliation case Trump settled in 2010, Trump has faced at least two dozen cases for age, sex or race discrimination in employment — some of them being class cases. This is out of the thousands of cases that Trump has become embroiled in over the past decades. There is so much out there on Trump’s sex discrimination scandals, we can only begin to scratch the surface.
Trump only wants to employ women he deems attractive
According to sworn testimony, Trump instructed his management team that only women who were pretty and thin should be employed at the Trump National Golf Club. Note that this testimony comes not only from women, but also from men who worked for Trump. For example, a male restaurant manager instructed to meet with female applicants before they were hired to ensure they were “sufficiently pretty” and to be sure that women working when Trump visited had to be young and attractive. The manager also gave sworn testimony that Trump ogled women when visiting, commented on their attractiveness in front of employees and customers, and questioned them about their dating preferences.
This was echoed by another Trump manager who was told to staff “good looking”women, particularly when Trump was in town; and yet another Trump manager who was told to either fire overweight women or not give them shifts or otherwise hide them when Trump was in town.
In researching the story, the LA Times not only combed through the attached legal files but also spoke with servers who shared similar experiences — including
Gross Disregard for Merit
In addition to the lack of professionalism and preference for punitive measures that this case, like yesterday’s, illustrates, the litigation here also suggests that Trump and the people working for him suffer from an inability or unwillingness to assess the potential or actual contributions of women. Instead, when assessing their value to his organization — their hireability, promoteability, or employability — Trump instituted a metric that ignored merit altogether. This is not only illegal, but also indicative of terrible judgment.
In numerous cases I have litigated, I’ve seen women who were objectively super-stars in their organizations be undervalued and under-utilized because their accomplishments were not as important to their employers as their gender. Whether they were setting national or international records for their sales results, managing teams of employees out of crisis, successfully launching products under budget and ahead of schedule, or winning landmark victories in technical and complex areas of the law, a disregard for their merit meant that my clients were paid less, passed over for promotions, and sometimes even managed out of companies.
BUT, a disregard for merit also means that the employer isn’t able to take advantage of the resources at their disposal. It means they are hiring the less qualified guy, promoting the less qualified guy, and retaining the less qualified guy. Now imagine this same disregard for merit and contribution is exhibited by our President and those who work for him. If there is any office where I want the utmost rigor shown in selection and evaluation procedures, it’s the Oval One.