5 ms·
Ask HN: Is hiring without a 'remote possible' option discriminatory?
There are many people that cannot in the foreseeable future be in a public space (i.e. an office), because they're in high-risk categories for COVID-19. For example, immunocompromised people, pregnant females, etc. But also there are others who are just not comfortable with the possibility of contracting the virus, irrespective of their risk group. At least not before a provenly working vaccine is available.
In this light, is it a discriminatory hiring policy (maybe not according to local laws, but in the broader sense) when a company requires in-office presence for their candidates?
- kf 6y agoI think so, except when it’s a position that does actually require one to be in a lab or manufacturing plant or similar. It will take a lawsuit to actually establish this but I imagine a law firm would take a case like this on contingency against a big company.
- aloukissas 6y agoI guess the legality is questionable (I'm definitely not a lawyer!) but mostly talking about the honesty of the company. Many startups today have a semi-standard "equally opportunity employer" but still have mostly on-site job postings for positions that 100% can be done remote (e.g. SW engineering).
- giantg2 6y agoAgree, it all comes down to whether offering remote options is considered "reasonable accomodations". This would probably be considered reasonable if the company has the infrastructure or could easily afford it. Small companies may not be required to provide this option if they don't have the infrastructure and can't easily afford it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hkarthik 6y agoLikely so. Also once there is a coronavirus vaccine, it will likely be considered discriminatory to require vaccination as a condition of employment in order to enter a company office.
- ptcrash 6y agoYes, it is discriminatory. But discrimination isn't illegal; discrimination against protected classes is. Examples of things hiring personnel can discriminate based on include political views, your weight, your sexuality (at leas here Texas), credit history, any bankruptcies, and unemployment.
- ptcrash 6y agoI'd like to just point out that I stated sexual orientation was not a protected class less than 24 hours before SCOTUS made their ruling. It's funny how suddenly things can change.