3 ms·
> Ms. Sawyerr said ... Of course she said that. Big bad company silenced her co-suiters with money, after their spy devision learned that she was bringing suit
by 2-tpg 6y ago
> Ms. Sawyerr said ...
Of course she said that. Big bad company silenced her co-suiters with money, after their spy devision learned that she was bringing suit. Now she has no recourse to go court herself, she absolutely needed those four other employees.
> The lack of a court case has nothing to do with the amount of evidence or the truthfulness of the accusations here.
It allows me to disqualify it as hearsay, and it allows you to think they offered severance payments, with the purpose to keep legit actual racism out of the courts.
Intent is of utmost importance for the law. Every lawyer and judge will agree to that. Punishment is increased for bad willful intent.
- slg 6y agoI give up. Clearly there is no point to this discussion anymore if you are going to dismiss any possible reporting as hearsay if it isn't argued in court. So I will simply leave this from the American Bar Association.[1] > In contrast, a disparate-impact claim does not require proof of an intention to discriminate. Instead, showing that a facially neutral employment practice has a disproportionately adverse impact on a protected group states a prima facie case of unlawful disparate-impact discrimination. What do you know, intent isn't needed for a valid case of discrimination. [1] - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gp_solo/2011/september/disparate_impact_claims_adea/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gp_so...