6 ms·
Serious question - since Ohanian has publicly stated that he urged the board to replace him with black candidate, is there a possibility that could face an EEOC
by LyndsySimon 6y ago
Serious question - since Ohanian has publicly stated that he urged the board to replace him with black candidate, is there a possibility that could face an EEOC charge?
Perhaps this doesn’t apply, as there may not be “applicants” depending upon how their bylaws are set up - without applicants I’m not sure who would have standing.
- adewinter 6y agoJust because Ohanian asked doesn't mean they had to do it. One can therefore conclude that they still chose a suitable candidate and would have chosen a differently colored candidate could they not find a suitable black candidate.
- casefields 6y agoI think it's all fine. But do you, or anyone else, really believe anything but a black person was going to be picked?
- gpm 6y agoThey said that they were going to honor his wish...
- Natsu 6y agoI saw media coverage claiming the board agreed to his request. I don't know how accurate it was, though.
- Digory 6y agoReddit publicly committed to selecting a director based on race.[0] Hiring and firing in the US based on race is typically unlawful, even if the candidate is qualified. You can’t use race as a qualification. It’s a challenge to the laws, and I assume Reddit(or Conde Nast) wants to raise it. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12337775 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&...
- whymauri 6y agoPerhaps I am naive, but I'm going to guess that whoever Reddit's counsel is was briefly cleared on this.
- Digory 6y agoAbsolutely. It’s a bet. Heads, it works. Tails, Condé Nast becomes known for litigation against the Trump DOJ, fighting against systemic racism. For the lawyers, it beats mopping up Bon Appetit’s editor in brownface.
- zobzu 6y agoSo requiring to pay for a position only for a specific skin color is not actual systemic racism, as long as color is not white, because white people are racists and this fights against that, or am I completely missing the mark? I'm sure people here are also well versed in silicon valley HR hiring practices regarding skin color based quotas.
- screye 6y agoI think OP's point has to do with the perceived value of their moral signaling vs the actual morals themselves. It is a win-win for Reddit in terms of perception, whether they have to fight a case because of it or not. If anything, this would be an 'any publicity is good publicity' situation. Now if it is actually inline with a truly moral stance...who cares. In this system there are only 3 morals. Money, money and more money.
- LyndsySimon 6y agoI was explicitly not taking a position on the action itself. I’m honestly interested to see how this might open a company to litigation.
- Digory 6y ago
- brianberns 6y agoEEOC says "In most circumstances, individuals who are partners, officers, members of boards of directors, or major shareholders will not qualify as employees." https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-2-threshold-issues https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-2-threshold-issue...
- rat87 6y agoNo For one thing a board position isn't a job. Also for some reason whenever a company tries to fight discrimination some people accuse them of discrimination, it's wierd
- jcims 6y agoIt’s kind of hard to argue that excluding candidates based on the color of their skin isn’t discrimination. Keep in mind that black folks aren’t the only minority in the US. All the rest just got a giant middle finger. Now you can rationalize it by saying that this was bringing some balance the representation on the board, which is also true. That’s fair. But it’s still discrimination.