Secretly recording job applications to incite the manager into EEOC violation
<p>I am planning to start targeting small businesses owned by veterans, and apply for jobs while wearing a hidden recorder.  </p>

<p>I plan to bait them by stating during my request to apply for a job, "soldiers are nothing more than hired killers and deserve contempt."</p>

<p>If they terminate the interview at that point I will then sue them for discrimination based on my political beliefs, which is illegal in my state (california).</p>

<p>Rinse, repeat.</p>

<p>I know that recording a private conversation is illegal and won't be admitted in court, but I plan to get around that by doing this in a public area of their business where other people are around.  This will also help keep me from being physically assaulted by stating my belief.</p>

<p>Can this tactic of inciting a strong emotional reaction that betrays someone into admitting an illegal discrimination be used to destroy veteran businesses?</p>

<p>Thanks for any help you can give.  I'm very excited by this plan and looking to tighten down the loose ends.  Murderers don't deserve to have the economic power to run businesses.</p>

<p>It sounds like you've read about <a href="https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/california-recording-laws/" rel="noreferrer">two party consent and public spaces</a>.</p>

<p>But while anyone can sue, it's winning a case that's relevant.</p>

<p>"My client respects the applicant's beliefs, but choosing to express beliefs in such a way during a job interview indicated sufficiently questionable judgement that my client was unable to consider the applicant further for the advertised position."</p>

<p>"It has also become apparent that the plaintiff was not acting in good faith in making an application for employment."</p>

<p>Court finds for the defendant and orders the plaintiff to pay costs.</p>

<p>So first of all, your read of second party consent is wrong as the place of buisness is semi-public, not public.   If you are asked to leave, and you do not, you are trespassing... and the legal standard for two party consent would be in force.  Further more, the reasonable expectation of privacy in a job interview is also enforce.   And in all cases, California courts have ruled that use of hidden camera recording almost always requires two party consent to recording (you might get away with it in a public street, but not someone's place of business.).   So there's problem one in your plan.</p>

<p>Secondly, the political discrimination law applies to your own off company political activites such as protests or campaigning.   Your targets can't refuse to hire you for supporting a political candidate or running for office, nor can they damage your career with the exception being that your political activity is disrupting the work place.  Since your stated goal for this is destroying the work place, it does not violate the law to not hire you... since you think your potential boss is a murder.  Oh... and here's the part I'm getting giddy about...</p>

<p>your belief that veterans are murders is slanderous (legally speaking) as accusations of a crimes they did not commit are pretty cut and dry slanderous statements.   Since most veterans were never charged for murder related to deaths caused in combat... And actually, Murder is a crime... but not all homicides are murder and homicide comitted as a combatant of war usually isn't a war crime.  To say nothing that you can be a military vet and be a non-combatant, such as a chaplain or a medic, and wouldn't be shooting anyone but ministering to any and all who needed it.   By saying they are murders and publishing it, they can sue you for damages because... they aren't legally murderers (unless they are out on release for a specific guilty crime).  What's more, they are not "public persons" for the the purposes of proving actual malice on your part, which means they don't have to prove you had malicious intent when you said defamatory things against them... but if they had too, merely asking this question here is proof enough of malicious intent... it's the internet... you can't scrub it from your files.   So have fun paying for damages you caused to their buisness (and defamatory naming someone a criminal is, well, per se defamation, which means they don't have to prove damages... so yeah...).</p>

<p>And finally, well, this whole grand master plan of yours... you telling all the world about it... well, that means that this could likely be unprotected speech under the First Amendment.   Fighting Words are not protected speech and while without action, you haven't met a major criteria (Fighting words must target an individual or group of people, not a general class of people), the minute you go to a small buisness owned by a veteran and say this... it does become fighting words... which means that the discrimination charges that protect against political speech don't apply because it's not political speech.  Of course, you also have to prove you intended to provoke a reaction... which, really one could only do if you, I don't know, went to a website where the public can find your statement and provided enough details to trace back to you, stating that your intention was to provoke a hostile reaction against someone in the hopes they act in an aggressive manner.   It would be a shame if some vet friendly person happened to screen cap this so he could send it to Veterans rights organizations in California before you had a chance to delete this.</p>

<p>Not that you have anything to worry about... deleting a question doesn't mean StackExchange users can never see it again... they let your deleted responses linger for a bit... because here at Stackexchange, there is no such thing as a stupid question... but there are occasionally incriminating questions.</p>

<p>Best of Luck with your Plan.</p>

<p>In court, the first question would be "Did you know that the business owner is a veteran?" You then have the choice between lying, which would be criminal in court, or losing instantly. Because what you said is not your political opinion, but an attempt to bait the business owner, and it is totally legal discrimination to not hire anyone who tries to bait the business owner. </p>

<p>And of course 99% of the population would draw the single conclusion that you are not someone that should be hired by anyone. </p>

<p>What you said may be “political opinion” but by your own admission you were baiting the business owner. Obvious that you don’t get the job. Not giving jobs to candidates who come in to bait the owner is perfectly legal and sensible discrimination. It’s not the political opinion, it’s being an asshole what keeps you from getting employed. </p>

<p>Next question by the judge: Did you have any intention to work for a murderer? What’s your answer to that?</p>

<p>PS. What sane person would try to destroy the business of a murderer? He murdered once in your opinion; that kind of person will not hesitate putting you six feet under. So either you were lying from the start, or a complete moron. </p>

california employment