4 ms·

It’s shocking to me how much the courts and executive branch have hollowed out the Civil Rights Act. > It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an empl

It’s shocking to me how much the courts and executive branch have hollowed out the Civil Rights Act. > It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin This is the law of the US. It couldn’t be more clear that your company is breaking the law. And yet it’s been completely neutered by activist judges and well-meaning executives and bureaucrats.

giantg2 5y ago
It's mostly that they simply don't want to prosecute, nor have the resources to fully enforce all the laws. We're supposed to be a nation ruled by laws. We've become a nation ruled by men due to their power to simply ignore the laws when they feel like it.
- BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
  > It's mostly that they simply don't want to prosecute, Correct > nor have the resources to fully enforce all the laws. I don't think so. They have all the resources they need to enforce the law if they wanted to. If the spreadsheet had said "male" instead of "female" they would fly to Uranus to gather evidence if they needed to.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "They have all the resources they need to enforce the law..." Maybe an individual occurrence. Not at scale. If I remember correctly, 80+% of cases go to a plea deal, wait times for a court date are months or years, and the murder solve rate in the US is only 70%. To me, it sounds like the courts are overwhelmed and even the most serious crimes have a relatively low solve rate.
Digory 5y ago
Activist judges didn’t make this spreadsheet. The company is responding to social pressure. It’s people trying to atone for the immorality of their social caste. The courts have been clear that this kind of discrimination is illegal. “Our next engineer must be female” isn’t legal, unless there’s something bizarrely gender specific about this task. If the Company is a federal contractor, this could be nuclear. Talk to a lawyer, not HN.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Nobody cares if the target is a while male. Some prominent authors have even argued that it’s not possible to discriminate against white males. Op should be more worried about their careers
raincom 5y ago
You can have laws on the books. Prosecutors have all the discretionary power: discretion NOT file a case to please their political allies, discretion to file a case using flimsy grounds to seek revenge against their political opponents, etc. As long as federal prosecutors don't care, "the law of the US" has no teeth.
- projektfu 5y ago
  It's not really about prosecution. The EEOC may or may not take interest in a case, but if they don't then the courts are wide open for plaintiffs. If you feel you have been discriminated against, you may have a case, and an attorney may be interested in pursuing it.
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    Civil matter won’t resolve in a way that will negatively affect op
raxxorrax 5y ago
Typical red tape bureaucracy where some people who propose they know better and believe they are to decide who discriminates against whom. The last 20 years civil liberties were made into a joke with anti-terror legislation. Some overextended bureaucrats believe they can counter these self-imposed developments by being the savior of womanhood, but nobody would propose discrimination in jobs that aren't prestigious. It is a complete paper tiger an lawfare. I fully believe judges will make decisions against the letter of the law, they are a suboptimal safeguard for civil liberties by now. They just legislate an exception and these clauses suddenly have no values anymore. Some people also thought humanism must be improved by making sex and race an issue again. Companies might like to comply so that nobody looks closer at their business models.

giantg2 5y ago

It's mostly that they simply don't want to prosecute, nor have the resources to fully enforce all the laws. We're supposed to be a nation ruled by laws. We've become a nation ruled by men due to their power to simply ignore the laws when they feel like it.

BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
> It's mostly that they simply don't want to prosecute, Correct > nor have the resources to fully enforce all the laws. I don't think so. They have all the resources they need to enforce the law if they wanted to. If the spreadsheet had said "male" instead of "female" they would fly to Uranus to gather evidence if they needed to.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "They have all the resources they need to enforce the law..." Maybe an individual occurrence. Not at scale. If I remember correctly, 80+% of cases go to a plea deal, wait times for a court date are months or years, and the murder solve rate in the US is only 70%. To me, it sounds like the courts are overwhelmed and even the most serious crimes have a relatively low solve rate.

Digory 5y ago

Activist judges didn’t make this spreadsheet. The company is responding to social pressure. It’s people trying to atone for the immorality of their social caste. The courts have been clear that this kind of discrimination is illegal. “Our next engineer must be female” isn’t legal, unless there’s something bizarrely gender specific about this task. If the Company is a federal contractor, this could be nuclear. Talk to a lawyer, not HN.

rdtwo 5y ago
Nobody cares if the target is a while male. Some prominent authors have even argued that it’s not possible to discriminate against white males. Op should be more worried about their careers

raincom 5y ago

You can have laws on the books. Prosecutors have all the discretionary power: discretion NOT file a case to please their political allies, discretion to file a case using flimsy grounds to seek revenge against their political opponents, etc. As long as federal prosecutors don't care, "the law of the US" has no teeth.

projektfu 5y ago
It's not really about prosecution. The EEOC may or may not take interest in a case, but if they don't then the courts are wide open for plaintiffs. If you feel you have been discriminated against, you may have a case, and an attorney may be interested in pursuing it.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Civil matter won’t resolve in a way that will negatively affect op

raxxorrax 5y ago

Typical red tape bureaucracy where some people who propose they know better and believe they are to decide who discriminates against whom. The last 20 years civil liberties were made into a joke with anti-terror legislation. Some overextended bureaucrats believe they can counter these self-imposed developments by being the savior of womanhood, but nobody would propose discrimination in jobs that aren't prestigious. It is a complete paper tiger an lawfare. I fully believe judges will make decisions against the letter of the law, they are a suboptimal safeguard for civil liberties by now. They just legislate an exception and these clauses suddenly have no values anymore. Some people also thought humanism must be improved by making sex and race an issue again. Companies might like to comply so that nobody looks closer at their business models.