4 ms·
Reddit 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 q
by Digory 6y ago
Reddit 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 ago1. A director looks more like an employee post-AB5, so it could be employment discrimination in California. 2. Independent contractors are protected against some race-based mistreatment in California. 3. The Unruh Act prohibits California businesses from race discrimination in offering “advantages” and “privileges” to non employees. 4. The next employee fired will have a much better case that their employment was terminated based on race — as Reddit openly does make decisions based on race. Granted, there are responses to all of these. Maybe even constitutional defenses. Maybe they’ll argue some other state’s laws apply, but all US states have pretty broad non discrimination laws — for a reason.
- jedberg 6y agoSection 2750.3 of the California Labor Code was added by AB5, and specifically excludes board members as employees.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Digory 6y agoLike many things around AB5, that's not straightforward. They'd have to severely limit his actual involvement to avoid employee status. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/do-directors-avoid-employee-status-under-ab-5 https://www.natlawreview.com/article/do-directors-avoid-empl...
- jedberg 6y agoA director of the company will easily pass the ABC test anyway. Especially given that he's a director at lots of other companies and has an existing full time job.
- barry-cotter 6y agoThe fact that you can write “We are an equal opportunity affirmative action employer.” and not get sued gives the lie to this. The plain reading of the law and how it is interpreted and enforced are at odds.
- xxpor 6y agoThe problem is you're missing an important aspect: members of the board of directors aren't employees.
- wpietri 6y agoOne, you can't use race, gender, etc unless it's relevant to the job, but here it could be seen as being relevant to the job. Two, a board director position is not a job, and so it's not covered by this law.
- Digory 6y agoI’m sure they’ll argue whatever they can. AB5 makes it more difficult to not be an employee in California. And there are far more non-discrimination laws than “employee.”
- rswail 6y agoA member of the board of directors of a company is not an employee.
- wpietri 6y agoIf you think some specific, non-employment nondiscrimination law is relevant here, please cite it. But note that this is a shift in your previous position, which is that this is a job.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Digory 6y agoHad to go back and check, given the bold assertions of others in the thread. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/do-directors-avoid-employee-status-under-ab-5 https://www.natlawreview.com/article/do-directors-avoid-empl...
- ars 6y agoIt's worse than just illegal, now that they announced that, everyone will assume his skin color is the only reason he was appointed (or at least a major factor) - despite an impressive resume.
- jedberg 6y agoReddit hasn't been owned by Conde Nast for a long time. Board members aren't employees, so discrimination rules don't apply. In fact California already has a law requiring discrimination based on gender (another protected class) for boards. All California companies must have one female board member and have at least two by 2021.
- Digory 6y agoHeh. It’s still connected by the old Newhouse empire at the top, but you’d know that better than most, I’d wager.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]