4 ms·

Pertinent John Doe line 'When John Doe indicated to Cisco's human resources team that he wanted to file a complaint, he was allegedly told by the department tha

by iaw 6y ago

Pertinent John Doe line 'When John Doe indicated to Cisco's human resources team that he wanted to file a complaint, he was allegedly told by the department that "caste discrimination was not unlawful".' Pertinent Cisco line 'We have robust processes to report and investigate concerns raised by employees which were followed in this case dating back to 2016, and have determined we were fully in compliance with all laws as well as our own policies.' So, in my reading, Cisco's HR lawyers decided Caste discrimination was legal and easier to let continue than shake the tree under their managers.

raverbashing 6y ago
> Cisco's HR lawyers decided Caste discrimination was legal Sounds like a fun point to make over a disbarment proceedings, because that's what I think they should be subject to.
- toast0 6y ago
  From a human perspective, caste discrimination is really the same thing as race discrimination, discrimination based on your ancestry. I'm pretty sure caste discrimination is unlawful in India (other than their reservation system of affirmative action). However, I don't believe caste is in legislation as a protected class in California or at the US federal level, nor do I believe there is judicial action on this. To me, that says, caste discrimination in the US is lawful and reprehensible. A lawyer should not be disbarred for making a determination that seems to be accurate.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    Ok maybe disbarment is too heavy But I'd say it would be not too hard to argue that it would fit race or national origin discrimination But regardless of the legality of it, it is extremely poor judgement to allow such discrimination in place of work.
belltaco 6y ago
There are many things that are not unlawful but people assume they are, for example workplace discrimination(like forcing extra workloads on people on work permits) based on immigration status is 100% legal.
rbecker 6y ago
> Cisco's HR lawyers decided Caste discrimination was legal A risky decision, since it's effectively ethnic discrimination: These groups remained genetically distinct, and the linguistic history of India suggests they spoke languages with dramatically different origins. Nevertheless, it appears there was a good deal of intermarriage [..] But then there is a sea change about 1,500 years ago. [..] People had to marry within their castes. And suddenly, we no longer see signs of intermixing between different groups. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/the-caste-system-has-left-its-mark-on-indians-genomes/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/the-caste-system-has...
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Ethnicity is not a protected class in the US or in CA.
gamblor956 6y ago
Caste is not a protected class under US or CA labor laws, so they are legally correct. In a nutshell: discrimination on the basis of one of the enumerated protected classes is unlawful. This list includes sex, gender, race, religion, and nationality, among the big ones. (Note: the list does not generally include ethnicity, which is roughly defined as "cultural identity.") All other forms of discrimination, while potentially actionable for other reasons, are not prohibited. Thus, for example, in most states, you can be fired based on your political affiliation (though not in CA). As the US and CA do not have histories with caste systems, and potential cases represent such an insignificant fraction of possible cases, it was never made illegal here. Arguably, caste discrimination is just a form of racial discrimination, but the plaintiff will have to connect the dots for the court to show the tie between caste and race.

by iaw 6y ago

raverbashing 6y ago

> Cisco's HR lawyers decided Caste discrimination was legal Sounds like a fun point to make over a disbarment proceedings, because that's what I think they should be subject to.

toast0 6y ago
From a human perspective, caste discrimination is really the same thing as race discrimination, discrimination based on your ancestry. I'm pretty sure caste discrimination is unlawful in India (other than their reservation system of affirmative action). However, I don't believe caste is in legislation as a protected class in California or at the US federal level, nor do I believe there is judicial action on this. To me, that says, caste discrimination in the US is lawful and reprehensible. A lawyer should not be disbarred for making a determination that seems to be accurate.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Ok maybe disbarment is too heavy But I'd say it would be not too hard to argue that it would fit race or national origin discrimination But regardless of the legality of it, it is extremely poor judgement to allow such discrimination in place of work.

belltaco 6y ago

There are many things that are not unlawful but people assume they are, for example workplace discrimination(like forcing extra workloads on people on work permits) based on immigration status is 100% legal.

rbecker 6y ago

> Cisco's HR lawyers decided Caste discrimination was legal A risky decision, since it's effectively ethnic discrimination: These groups remained genetically distinct, and the linguistic history of India suggests they spoke languages with dramatically different origins. Nevertheless, it appears there was a good deal of intermarriage [..] But then there is a sea change about 1,500 years ago. [..] People had to marry within their castes. And suddenly, we no longer see signs of intermixing between different groups. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/the-caste-system-has-left-its-mark-on-indians-genomes/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/the-caste-system-has...

gamblor956 6y ago
Ethnicity is not a protected class in the US or in CA.

gamblor956 6y ago

Caste is not a protected class under US or CA labor laws, so they are legally correct. In a nutshell: discrimination on the basis of one of the enumerated protected classes is unlawful. This list includes sex, gender, race, religion, and nationality, among the big ones. (Note: the list does not generally include ethnicity, which is roughly defined as "cultural identity.") All other forms of discrimination, while potentially actionable for other reasons, are not prohibited. Thus, for example, in most states, you can be fired based on your political affiliation (though not in CA). As the US and CA do not have histories with caste systems, and potential cases represent such an insignificant fraction of possible cases, it was never made illegal here. Arguably, caste discrimination is just a form of racial discrimination, but the plaintiff will have to connect the dots for the court to show the tie between caste and race.