3 ms·

Excellent point! Isn't age a protected class though? At least in the US, discrimination over 40 is covered by the EEOC.

• roflc0ptic 7y ago
  I'm hazy on the details, but it's not a protected class in the same way that e.g. race is. In alleging racial discrimination (in certain legal venues), statistical evidence of racial discrimination is admissible, however statistical evidence of age discrimination is not. E.g. if there are layoffs, and every grey head disappears, that's not grounds to allege discrimination. You'd have to have someone on record saying "we're firing all of the old fucks because they remind me of the inescapability of my own mortality" to litigate. Someone with a better grasp on the particulars here please chime in :)
• gumby 7y ago
  They are protected against certain kinds of discrimination, but no human discriminated against them. It was simply a dispassionate algorithm and an algorithm can't display malice! Grrr... or that's what they, and probably the courts, would say. The OP calling it "discrimination laundering" had it right.
  • pkaye 7y ago
    I don't think you can use "no human discriminated against them" as a defense. It could still be constructive discrimination.
  • lmkg 7y ago
    > probably the courts, would say The courts are the ones that created the doctrine of "disparate impact." A criterion can be discriminatory even if it doesn't look discriminatory on its face. And, importantly, it does not require intent to discriminate, only impact.