> I was trying to logically explain the reality So was I. My logic is simple to explain: Pre-CRA - 100% of employers (small businesses, large businesses, medi

> I was trying to logically explain the reality So was I. My logic is simple to explain: Pre-CRA - 100% of employers (small businesses, large businesses, medium business, non-profits, governments) could discriminate, and many did. Post-CRA - < 100% of employers could discriminate Therefore, the number of jobs available to everyone (minorities and non-minorities alike) went up. It's simple math. I don't understand what your logic is. Because you've said both: "Small business owners do not hire minorities because they risk being sued when they fire them." and "If I want to sue my employer for firing me due to racial reasons, I have to prove in court that they have a practice of discrimination. This is easier to do against larger employers [than]...a small employer. That establishes a difficulty for minorities to sue small businesses, which allows small businesses to discriminate." So minorities find it harder to sue small businesses, but, also, small business owners don't hire minorities because they risk being sued. What? And small businesses only worry about lawsuits by fired employees, but not ones by candidates who feel illegal bias was a factor in their rejection. Why? > I would have a hard time trying to find sources that are going to admit to discriminating publicly Don't necessarily need that. Economists have all sorts of ingenious ways to tease out this information from other labor and employment data, EEO surveys that many employees and candidates fill out, and other things. If there's any evidence of what you're suggesting, there would be clues in that data. > I'm done. Me too, friend. Take care and a (slightly belated) happy new year. :-)