In Re: Palacio waitress (Miner, July 7), the writer brings up the subject of discrimination. In his harangue, referring to xenophobia, ethnic prejudice, etc., he omits the one form of discrimination that may actually apply in this situation: sex discrimination. Why the writer diverts from a legalistic discourse to this track of dialogue is unclear, but immediately playing the “discrimination card” is a common tactic with progressives.
Discrimination is the act of making a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing. In the general usage of the word, it means that an authority figure (employer, cop, landlord, bare owner, etc.) refuses to accommodate an individual they may dislike because of their ethnicity, race, sex, physical impairment, etc. The waitress was not necessarily discriminating.
It is a safe bet she would not have been working there had she ever previously demonstrated any prejudicial bias. As she told her co-worker, she felt uncomfortable around uniformed police. She may have believed it might compromise her level of service.
One should neither jump to conclusions nor criminalize someone without knowing the reason behind their action. A lot of people are nervous in the presence of uniformed police, and may act tense or uneasy.
However, discrimination may very well be called into play in this case. Two adult males of authority, one a public servant, the other a business owner and employer, gang up on one lonely female employee. One of the adult males, the DPS officer, lied on Facebook about the actions of the waitress, and publicized it, which led to the other adult male, her employer, firing her from her job.
This firing might be easily be seen as a wrongful termination. That was the subject of the earlier letter published in the July 4 Miner. Sexual harassment or sexual discrimination can probably be added to that. Once again, a capable attorney might easily see a successful lawsuit in this, if not a suitable settlement from El Palacio and perhaps also from the DPS officer.