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 hav

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.