3 ms·
Assuming you fire people only on merit, which should be IBM's claim, then the percentage should be about the same. This is not accurate. Older people being mor
by lacker 8y ago
Assuming you fire people only on merit, which should be IBM's claim, then the percentage should be about the same.
This is not accurate. Older people being more likely to be fired in a particular layoff could be a correlation, not a causation. You can't statistically prove discrimination in this way.
- tabtab 8y agoEvery "correlation" reason I've seen anyone come up with still looks pretty much like discrimination done in a round-about way, or at least could be seen as such in front of a jury. Still, I could be surprised.
- lacker 8y agoThe point of "correlation is not causation" is that doesn't need to be a reason for every correlation. Things can be correlated without there being a clear reason. It's like how a reduction in piracy is correlated with global warming. see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/#2fc8b5943a67 https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-f...
- tabtab 8y agoAn org doesn't have to "intend" to discriminate to actually discriminate. Plus, the jury may not care about "causation" and instead focus on whether some filter of some kind somewhere screened out older people. It depends on the jury instructions and the personalities of the jurors.