10 ms·

'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

149 points by leephillips 4y ago

twirlock 4y ago
yieldcrv 4y ago
> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. The mere fact that this is deemed as "novel" or newsworthy or intriguing is a poor reflection of society itself. Fortunately the judges all understand it, even if this diverges so heavily from the general population (including employer's) understanding of race and sex inclusion/discrimination. But it kind of reminds me of academia, when all the students get it wrong, then maybe its the teacher! Leaving everyone to their own devices to implement an abstract concept of DEI and Affirmative Action keeps leading to the same implementation flaws and polarizing resentment over and over and over again.
- slg 4y ago
  >> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. >To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this is less obvious when looking at how they define age discrimination. Specifically the protected class is people over 40. Why is that distinction made instead of a blanket "no one can be discriminated against based on their age"? Doesn't that imply it is trying to protect a specific group rather than force equal treatment? Why can't a young person sue for age discrimination? How is that logically different from a white person suing for racial discrimination?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeaDrunk 4y ago
    I think part of this is that, obviously it is totally fine to discriminate based on age. Children aren't allowed to work, vote, buy certain items, etc. You're also not allowed certain public offices if you're too young.
    - sjtindell 4y ago
      I don’t know if the term discrimination fits there. Employers would gladly employ children if not for the law.
    - Enginerrrd 4y ago
      I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I'm fairly sure this is the correct reasoning. We generally think it's acceptable to discriminate on the basis of age in many contexts, one of the most important of those being experience. If you are selecting candidates with more experience or "maturity" than is possible for someone of a particular age, you are effectively discriminating by age. Perhaps people have morphed their internal definition of the word "discrimination" into something that differs from the dictionary and therein lies the objection?
    - CodeSgt 4y ago
      The difference is that we can conclusively show that children are intellectually under developed. Old people are often just as intelligent as their younger colleagues, and often wiser as well. Of course there are exceptions, but there are poor performers at every age bracket for a variety of reasons.
    - tomhyggja 4y ago
      Let's abolish these discriminatory labour laws. If a child can go to school he can also work, why rob 8 year olds of this opportunity & force them to school when they could be working in a sweatshop?
  - hunter2_ 4y ago
- RappingBoomer 4y ago
  law school grad here--generic white males are not afforded the same protections as protected classes
  - prepend 4y ago
    Not law school grad here but my understanding of protected classes - sex, age, race, religion, national origin, disability, veteran status - is that it’s that particular characteristic, not the values of those classes. I can’t fire someone for being male or female. It’s not ok to fire someone for being male, or white. It’s not like only some religions are protected, while others aren’t. You may want to check into a rebate on that law school tuition.
    - pseudo0 4y ago
      You can legally deny an Asian (or white) male's college application on the basis of race though, see Grutter v. Bollinger. The Fourteenth Amendment might be worded in a universal way, but the application of its protection is currently very selective.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Based on what?
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      Based on the rulings of liberal judges. The constitution and civil rights statutes are written in a race neutral way. The judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own Do you have cases which survived appeal which sustain this? Judges' opinions tend to be way more sober than they're portrayed in the media, which mostly focusses on which side won.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  - xiphias2 4y ago
    While I agree with you that they are trying to do it, the Johnny Depp case was an example to show that there is a limit that will backfire after 6 years if crossed. There are lots of cases in court where men are discriminated against (domestic violence was an example), but I believe that being white still has enough advantages generally. Agism is a stronger thing though that will get worse, as old people don't get instagram likes.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      IMO the Depp case if anything says that you can buy your way to better outcomes, but that's always been true no matter your race or sex. > There are lots of cases in court where men are discriminated against (domestic violence was an example), but I believe that being white still has enough advantages generally. Agism is a stronger thing though that will get worse, as old people don't get instagram likes. I'm not sure what point you're making. What advantages does being white still have, and why is it "enough"?
collegeburner 4y ago
About damn time. The fact that people can talk casually about "old white men" or whatever shows that they are being racist, sexist and agephobic. Maybe there isn't the same historical power imbalance but factoring that kind of thing into hiring or firing decisions is still a deontological wrong. I hope he wins and I hope that everybody who has been discriminated out of a job because they are white/black/man/woman/nb/old/young/whatever else sues and wins.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- colordrops 4y ago
  Sure. The biggest flaw in all this thinking is that an individual should suffer because an arbitrary grouping they're placed in historically has been abusive or advantaged, even if the individual is neither. And the groupings are usually flawed. For instance I'm an Arab, and have been discriminated against and even beaten for it. My ancestors are not Yale alumni ex-slave owner families, and I've never gotten a job for being "white". Yet I'm classified as "white", which is absurd and shows that racial groups are absurd, and not even a scientifically acknowledged phenomenon, but just a social construct [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
  - derevaunseraun 4y ago
    > Yet I'm classified as "white", which is absurd and shows that racial groups are absurd, and not even a scientifically acknowledged phenomenon, but just a social construct Who's doing the classifying? Most of the time it's you checking a box in some application form If it's just a social construct, theoretically what's stopping you from identifying as a different race? An honor system? Since there is no legal assignment of race, what's keeping people from just lying?
    - favorited 4y ago
      > If it's just a social construct, theoretically what's stopping you from identifying as a different race? Because that social construct doesn't involve self-selection. The construct is that society puts people into racial buckets.
__blockcipher__ 4y ago
> You can call it the paradox of the old white guy: Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. These laws are still protecting the equal treatment, since the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing is explicitly about giving unequal (more favorable) treatment to people who aren't white/male/cis. (The classic counterargument here is that because of historical marginalization equal treatment is actually unequal and therefore we must pursue "equity".)
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
- striking 4y ago
  > the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing is explicitly about giving unequal (more favorable) treatment to people who aren't white/male/cis It's too bad you see it that way when in a lot of cases it's explicitly about giving equal consideration to everyone rather than giving anyone more favorable treatment. Not every case, obviously, but that shouldn't invalidate attempting to level the playing field.
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    Where is this the case? I haven't witnessed it at any of my previous jobs, especially when I worked at a tech giant (Lyft). One of the higher ups in "DEI" at my local office said to me in an elevator, while it was just the two of us, "white guys are just the worst, aren't they?" Given the bizarre state of American racial politics, it was actually unclear if she was flexing on me, or if she genuinely expected me, a white male, to laugh and nod in agreement sincerely. Maybe I was simply being tested for ideological and cultural fealty. Pretty sure I failed.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      No doubt you were considered one of the good ones.
Kerrick 4y ago
> The company’s lawyers at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton also argued that DiBenedetto could not simultaneously assert a claim of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination of Employment Act because both laws require proof that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the particular version of discrimination each law prohibits. Because DiBenedetto alleged both age and race discrimination, AT&T said, he could satisfy neither law’s causation requirement. Wow. Just wow. They admit racist discrimination is illegal, admit ageist discrimination is illegal, but argue that racist+ageist discrimination is legal?!
- dwighttk 4y ago
  I mean that is just how lawyers work. Getting off on a technicality is as good as finding the truth. Former is even better if your client is guilty.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- planckscnst 4y ago
  This kind of situation is what led to Kimberlé Crenshaw coining the term "intersectionality" - to describe effects such as this.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- imgabe 4y ago
  Not that it’s legal, but that the way the laws are written precludes claiming both at the same time. > both laws require proof that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the particular version of discrimination each law prohibits So the racial discrimination requires proof that you would not have been injured except for the racial discrimination. But if there is age discrimination, then you would still have been injured anyway, so the racial discrimination doesn’t apply. And vice versa. I hope the judge won’t let it fly, but it’s certainly a logical inconsistency in the way the laws were written. I think the intent is to prevent people from claiming discrimination when there were other reasons, like being unqualified, that would have prevented them from getting the job or whatnot.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MontyCarloHall 4y ago
>The complaint recounts an incident, for instance, about Johnson telling DiBenedetto in 2020 that he expected to retire in a couple of years. DiBenedetto said he was interested in applying for his boss’ job. Johnson allegedly noted DiBenedetto’s short "runway." According to DiBenedetto, the boss said, “In these roles, you know, you've got to be able to adapt and move, and I'm not saying you can't, but a 58-year-old white guy, I don't know if that's going to happen.” Oof. Seems like an open and shut case if that last quote (or others of its ilk) can be proven to have been said.
- derevaunseraun 4y ago
  > Oof. Seems like an open and shut case if that last quote (or others of its ilk) can be proven to have been said. If he was in a one party consent state for audio recording, he should've recorded it.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    In hindsight this is obviously true, but I doubt many people record every conversation they have with their boss (I guess maybe they should just in case?)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jcadam 4y ago
      Remote work will make this easier. Imagine getting something like that over Slack. Boom, screen-shot.
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  When I initially read that I honestly didn't think it was all that bad. Inappropriate? Yes. Lawsuit worthy? No. But then, I imagined if the same thing were said to a 58 year old black woman, and immediately realized that it's severity. Is it just me, or has racism towards white people become acceptable/main stream (at least, much more so than racism towards other races)? I feel as if my lack of a visceral reaction to this is due in part to a form of desensitization that's taken place during my time on social media. I rarely see this racism expressed as actual hatred, but I very frequently see disparaging jokes targeted towards white people, especially old white people.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
adra 4y ago
Not to make light of the possibly real allegations, but I'd argue the most likely outcome has to do with compensation and productivity than "discrimination" against a class. The target was probably the least productive employees, aka the ones who make the most and seemingly produce the least amount of value per their compensation. Fleets of middle class people lost their jobs in the decades predating this for the same reasons, and I bet the majority of the high earning staff are probably more likely to have been white men as well (because they were likely the most hired demography hired into those roles made redundant). To quote my most beloved demotivator, "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawn-mower."
- prepend 4y ago
  All 13 fired employees were over 50 and 9 were male and all were white. The article doesn’t give the department demographics but it’s hard to believe that the entire department was over 50 and white. It will be open and shut if the department has multiple age groups and races.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > most likely outcome has to do with compensation and productivity than "discrimination" against a class If you’re overlooking someone because of their short “runway,” and then telling them that, you’re going to get sued. Because you are clearly, provably discriminating based on age.
  - adra 4y ago
    Absolutely, if we believe the individual's quoted comment as a fact,then certainly this points to discrimination. The problem is that HN isn't a court of law, and quotes made by litigants haven't been litigated for accuracy. As I stated, the IMHO opinion of ageism usually comes down to value/cost == worth-keeping. I'm in my 40s and still very productive. I work with some people in their 50s and they're great workers. That doesn't mean that all employees working for a company 20 years can or choose to keep working at peak performance. Seniority is often a carrot which can retain employees with deep company wisdom, but it can also inversely over-compensate an employee per their available talents. Maybe they're tired of working there, but forced to because working anywhere else is a 20%+ pay cut. Despite being miserable they could stick it out but just coast. That general pattern (which I have certainly seen with peers over the years), can lead to employees that have b en at a company for so long that their compensation is just completely out of whack with current market rates.
madengr 4y ago
amitkgupta84 4y ago
Discriminating based on race/sex is racist/sexist. It’s sad today that many people (racists and sexists) staunchly believe the opposite of the above when discrimination is going against the race or sex who “deserve” it, going so far as to call this kind of racism “anti-racism”. Worse, though, is that many others lack the moral clarity or courage to admit that they understand that discriminating based on race/sex is racist/sexist, and thereby allow this kind of racism/sexism to perpetuate.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
etchalon 4y ago
> Diversity and inclusion, she said, are the whole point of federal civil rights law. But AT&T’s allegedly “rigid reliance on the company’s internal demographics,” Cannon wrote, plausibly implied — at this early stage of DiBenedetto’s case — that his bosses “unlawfully considered his race and gender when terminating him under the pretext of financial strain.” It sounds like, essentially, this judge is allowing the argument that attempting to rectify discrimination is illegal unless you can do so without generating new discrimination. And I'm very excited to hear people who think that's possible.
joeman1000 4y ago
Straight-up racism. Hope he wins. No discrimination is OK.
cat_plus_plus 4y ago
Should be a class action, it's impossible to work in Silicon Valley without endless racial hostility, most from obnoxious activists, but even from official management chain. How can one stay motivated when there is always a question whether he (let's admit it's a bigger question for guys) is passed over for a promotion or high visibility presentation because they don't want more of his kind of people. I am not saying there is no racism against people with other skin tones or sexism against women. But it's actually possible to have discrimination against everyone at the same time, where individuals with best talent, experience and character are passed over in favor of tribalism of decision makers. Actually shareholders should sue tech companies to implement individual merit, transparency and work environment free from racial harassment.

149 points by leephillips 4y ago

> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. The mere fact that this is deemed as "novel" or newsworthy or intriguing is a poor reflection of society itself. Fortunately the judges all understand it, even if this diverges so heavily from the general population (including employer's) understanding of race and sex inclusion/discrimination. But it kind of reminds me of academia, when all the students get it wrong, then maybe its the teacher! Leaving everyone to their own devices to implement an abstract concept of DEI and Affirmative Action keeps leading to the same implementation flaws and polarizing resentment over and over and over again.

slg 4y ago
>> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. >To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this is less obvious when looking at how they define age discrimination. Specifically the protected class is people over 40. Why is that distinction made instead of a blanket "no one can be discriminated against based on their age"? Doesn't that imply it is trying to protect a specific group rather than force equal treatment? Why can't a young person sue for age discrimination? How is that logically different from a white person suing for racial discrimination?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TeaDrunk 4y ago
  I think part of this is that, obviously it is totally fine to discriminate based on age. Children aren't allowed to work, vote, buy certain items, etc. You're also not allowed certain public offices if you're too young.
  - sjtindell 4y ago
    I don’t know if the term discrimination fits there. Employers would gladly employ children if not for the law.
  - Enginerrrd 4y ago
    I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I'm fairly sure this is the correct reasoning. We generally think it's acceptable to discriminate on the basis of age in many contexts, one of the most important of those being experience. If you are selecting candidates with more experience or "maturity" than is possible for someone of a particular age, you are effectively discriminating by age. Perhaps people have morphed their internal definition of the word "discrimination" into something that differs from the dictionary and therein lies the objection?
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    The difference is that we can conclusively show that children are intellectually under developed. Old people are often just as intelligent as their younger colleagues, and often wiser as well. Of course there are exceptions, but there are poor performers at every age bracket for a variety of reasons.
  - tomhyggja 4y ago
    Let's abolish these discriminatory labour laws. If a child can go to school he can also work, why rob 8 year olds of this opportunity & force them to school when they could be working in a sweatshop?
- hunter2_ 4y ago
RappingBoomer 4y ago
law school grad here--generic white males are not afforded the same protections as protected classes
- prepend 4y ago
  Not law school grad here but my understanding of protected classes - sex, age, race, religion, national origin, disability, veteran status - is that it’s that particular characteristic, not the values of those classes. I can’t fire someone for being male or female. It’s not ok to fire someone for being male, or white. It’s not like only some religions are protected, while others aren’t. You may want to check into a rebate on that law school tuition.
  - pseudo0 4y ago
    You can legally deny an Asian (or white) male's college application on the basis of race though, see Grutter v. Bollinger. The Fourteenth Amendment might be worded in a universal way, but the application of its protection is currently very selective.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Based on what?
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    Based on the rulings of liberal judges. The constitution and civil rights statutes are written in a race neutral way. The judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own Do you have cases which survived appeal which sustain this? Judges' opinions tend to be way more sober than they're portrayed in the media, which mostly focusses on which side won.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwawaylinux 4y ago
- xiphias2 4y ago
  While I agree with you that they are trying to do it, the Johnny Depp case was an example to show that there is a limit that will backfire after 6 years if crossed. There are lots of cases in court where men are discriminated against (domestic violence was an example), but I believe that being white still has enough advantages generally. Agism is a stronger thing though that will get worse, as old people don't get instagram likes.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    IMO the Depp case if anything says that you can buy your way to better outcomes, but that's always been true no matter your race or sex. > There are lots of cases in court where men are discriminated against (domestic violence was an example), but I believe that being white still has enough advantages generally. Agism is a stronger thing though that will get worse, as old people don't get instagram likes. I'm not sure what point you're making. What advantages does being white still have, and why is it "enough"?

collegeburner 4y ago

About damn time. The fact that people can talk casually about "old white men" or whatever shows that they are being racist, sexist and agephobic. Maybe there isn't the same historical power imbalance but factoring that kind of thing into hiring or firing decisions is still a deontological wrong. I hope he wins and I hope that everybody who has been discriminated out of a job because they are white/black/man/woman/nb/old/young/whatever else sues and wins.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
colordrops 4y ago
Sure. The biggest flaw in all this thinking is that an individual should suffer because an arbitrary grouping they're placed in historically has been abusive or advantaged, even if the individual is neither. And the groupings are usually flawed. For instance I'm an Arab, and have been discriminated against and even beaten for it. My ancestors are not Yale alumni ex-slave owner families, and I've never gotten a job for being "white". Yet I'm classified as "white", which is absurd and shows that racial groups are absurd, and not even a scientifically acknowledged phenomenon, but just a social construct [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
- derevaunseraun 4y ago
  > Yet I'm classified as "white", which is absurd and shows that racial groups are absurd, and not even a scientifically acknowledged phenomenon, but just a social construct Who's doing the classifying? Most of the time it's you checking a box in some application form If it's just a social construct, theoretically what's stopping you from identifying as a different race? An honor system? Since there is no legal assignment of race, what's keeping people from just lying?
  - favorited 4y ago
    > If it's just a social construct, theoretically what's stopping you from identifying as a different race? Because that social construct doesn't involve self-selection. The construct is that society puts people into racial buckets.

__blockcipher__ 4y ago

> You can call it the paradox of the old white guy: Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. These laws are still protecting the equal treatment, since the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing is explicitly about giving unequal (more favorable) treatment to people who aren't white/male/cis. (The classic counterargument here is that because of historical marginalization equal treatment is actually unequal and therefore we must pursue "equity".)

giraffe_lady 4y ago
striking 4y ago
> the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing is explicitly about giving unequal (more favorable) treatment to people who aren't white/male/cis It's too bad you see it that way when in a lot of cases it's explicitly about giving equal consideration to everyone rather than giving anyone more favorable treatment. Not every case, obviously, but that shouldn't invalidate attempting to level the playing field.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  Where is this the case? I haven't witnessed it at any of my previous jobs, especially when I worked at a tech giant (Lyft). One of the higher ups in "DEI" at my local office said to me in an elevator, while it was just the two of us, "white guys are just the worst, aren't they?" Given the bizarre state of American racial politics, it was actually unclear if she was flexing on me, or if she genuinely expected me, a white male, to laugh and nod in agreement sincerely. Maybe I was simply being tested for ideological and cultural fealty. Pretty sure I failed.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    No doubt you were considered one of the good ones.

Kerrick 4y ago

> The company’s lawyers at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton also argued that DiBenedetto could not simultaneously assert a claim of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination of Employment Act because both laws require proof that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the particular version of discrimination each law prohibits. Because DiBenedetto alleged both age and race discrimination, AT&T said, he could satisfy neither law’s causation requirement. Wow. Just wow. They admit racist discrimination is illegal, admit ageist discrimination is illegal, but argue that racist+ageist discrimination is legal?!

dwighttk 4y ago
I mean that is just how lawyers work. Getting off on a technicality is as good as finding the truth. Former is even better if your client is guilty.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
planckscnst 4y ago
This kind of situation is what led to Kimberlé Crenshaw coining the term "intersectionality" - to describe effects such as this.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
imgabe 4y ago
Not that it’s legal, but that the way the laws are written precludes claiming both at the same time. > both laws require proof that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the particular version of discrimination each law prohibits So the racial discrimination requires proof that you would not have been injured except for the racial discrimination. But if there is age discrimination, then you would still have been injured anyway, so the racial discrimination doesn’t apply. And vice versa. I hope the judge won’t let it fly, but it’s certainly a logical inconsistency in the way the laws were written. I think the intent is to prevent people from claiming discrimination when there were other reasons, like being unqualified, that would have prevented them from getting the job or whatnot.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

MontyCarloHall 4y ago

>The complaint recounts an incident, for instance, about Johnson telling DiBenedetto in 2020 that he expected to retire in a couple of years. DiBenedetto said he was interested in applying for his boss’ job. Johnson allegedly noted DiBenedetto’s short "runway." According to DiBenedetto, the boss said, “In these roles, you know, you've got to be able to adapt and move, and I'm not saying you can't, but a 58-year-old white guy, I don't know if that's going to happen.” Oof. Seems like an open and shut case if that last quote (or others of its ilk) can be proven to have been said.

derevaunseraun 4y ago
> Oof. Seems like an open and shut case if that last quote (or others of its ilk) can be proven to have been said. If he was in a one party consent state for audio recording, he should've recorded it.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  In hindsight this is obviously true, but I doubt many people record every conversation they have with their boss (I guess maybe they should just in case?)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jcadam 4y ago
    Remote work will make this easier. Imagine getting something like that over Slack. Boom, screen-shot.
CodeSgt 4y ago
When I initially read that I honestly didn't think it was all that bad. Inappropriate? Yes. Lawsuit worthy? No. But then, I imagined if the same thing were said to a 58 year old black woman, and immediately realized that it's severity. Is it just me, or has racism towards white people become acceptable/main stream (at least, much more so than racism towards other races)? I feel as if my lack of a visceral reaction to this is due in part to a form of desensitization that's taken place during my time on social media. I rarely see this racism expressed as actual hatred, but I very frequently see disparaging jokes targeted towards white people, especially old white people.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

adra 4y ago

Not to make light of the possibly real allegations, but I'd argue the most likely outcome has to do with compensation and productivity than "discrimination" against a class. The target was probably the least productive employees, aka the ones who make the most and seemingly produce the least amount of value per their compensation. Fleets of middle class people lost their jobs in the decades predating this for the same reasons, and I bet the majority of the high earning staff are probably more likely to have been white men as well (because they were likely the most hired demography hired into those roles made redundant). To quote my most beloved demotivator, "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawn-mower."

prepend 4y ago
All 13 fired employees were over 50 and 9 were male and all were white. The article doesn’t give the department demographics but it’s hard to believe that the entire department was over 50 and white. It will be open and shut if the department has multiple age groups and races.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> most likely outcome has to do with compensation and productivity than "discrimination" against a class If you’re overlooking someone because of their short “runway,” and then telling them that, you’re going to get sued. Because you are clearly, provably discriminating based on age.
- adra 4y ago
  Absolutely, if we believe the individual's quoted comment as a fact,then certainly this points to discrimination. The problem is that HN isn't a court of law, and quotes made by litigants haven't been litigated for accuracy. As I stated, the IMHO opinion of ageism usually comes down to value/cost == worth-keeping. I'm in my 40s and still very productive. I work with some people in their 50s and they're great workers. That doesn't mean that all employees working for a company 20 years can or choose to keep working at peak performance. Seniority is often a carrot which can retain employees with deep company wisdom, but it can also inversely over-compensate an employee per their available talents. Maybe they're tired of working there, but forced to because working anywhere else is a 20%+ pay cut. Despite being miserable they could stick it out but just coast. That general pattern (which I have certainly seen with peers over the years), can lead to employees that have b en at a company for so long that their compensation is just completely out of whack with current market rates.

madengr 4y ago

amitkgupta84 4y ago

Discriminating based on race/sex is racist/sexist. It’s sad today that many people (racists and sexists) staunchly believe the opposite of the above when discrimination is going against the race or sex who “deserve” it, going so far as to call this kind of racism “anti-racism”. Worse, though, is that many others lack the moral clarity or courage to admit that they understand that discriminating based on race/sex is racist/sexist, and thereby allow this kind of racism/sexism to perpetuate.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

etchalon 4y ago

> Diversity and inclusion, she said, are the whole point of federal civil rights law. But AT&T’s allegedly “rigid reliance on the company’s internal demographics,” Cannon wrote, plausibly implied — at this early stage of DiBenedetto’s case — that his bosses “unlawfully considered his race and gender when terminating him under the pretext of financial strain.” It sounds like, essentially, this judge is allowing the argument that attempting to rectify discrimination is illegal unless you can do so without generating new discrimination. And I'm very excited to hear people who think that's possible.

joeman1000 4y ago

Straight-up racism. Hope he wins. No discrimination is OK.

cat_plus_plus 4y ago

Should be a class action, it's impossible to work in Silicon Valley without endless racial hostility, most from obnoxious activists, but even from official management chain. How can one stay motivated when there is always a question whether he (let's admit it's a bigger question for guys) is passed over for a promotion or high visibility presentation because they don't want more of his kind of people. I am not saying there is no racism against people with other skin tones or sexism against women. But it's actually possible to have discrimination against everyone at the same time, where individuals with best talent, experience and character are passed over in favor of tribalism of decision makers. Actually shareholders should sue tech companies to implement individual merit, transparency and work environment free from racial harassment.