4 ms·

> The company’s lawyers at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton also argued that DiBenedetto could not simultaneously assert a claim of racial discrimination under th

> 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]

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]