5 ms·
If it can be proven that that's what they did, it's likely illegal.
by ivraatiems 4y ago
If it can be proven that that's what they did, it's likely illegal.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- belval 4y agoHow would you even begin to prove something like that? No exec would be dumb enough to send an email that says "we see that the bottom 11% in your organization is mostly marginalized groups, we can't let you fire them". It will be a wink-wink nudge-nudge during a 1-1 meeting.
- ivraatiems 4y agoIANAL, but, it'd be tough for sure. You'd need to compare who was fired to who wasn't and contextualize with metrics that made it clear it wasn't coincidence.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- boredumb 4y ago"As you all know, we are committed to becoming an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression company. Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens." Any one who isn't asleep at the wheel is well aware that corporate/institutional newspeak terms like "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" means anti white and asian.
- staticautomatic 4y agoThe legal process itself opens the door to proving it. You sue them, and if you survive a motion to dismiss among probably some others, you’ll get to go into discovery.
- pastor_bob 4y agoTitle VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. If 90% of the people who work at Twilio are white, and 90% of the laid off people are white, that isn't discrimination.
- Bakary 4y agoIf the decision to fire is based on the demographic makeup rather than the individual's performance, it would still be discrimination (in a purely ethical sense)