7 ms·

But is it plain illegal. For employment purposes Race is a protected class (at least in USA) and racial discrimination while hiring or firing violates federal l

by lr1970 4y ago

But is it plain illegal. For employment purposes Race is a protected class (at least in USA) and racial discrimination while hiring or firing violates federal law. How would they get away with this?

jballer 4y ago
They're betting that a lawsuit would be so wildly unpopular that people would rather leave the money (and the principle) behind than face social exile.
crackercrews 4y ago
Isn't affirmative action in hiring legal? Seems like this is just the same thing but for layoffs.
- NeverFade 4y ago
  It is absolutely illegal. It violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which: > outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Yes, that's the same act that makes it illegal to discriminate against racial minorities, women, religions, etc. Discrimination based on race is illegal, pure and simple. Hiding it under nice names like "affirmative action" does not change this fact.
  - mrtranscendence 4y ago
    I don’t think this is right. Affirmative action has been upheld by the courts, and is currently in practice at some private employers (and is mandated for government contractors).
    - NeverFade 4y ago
      You are wrong. There is one judgement that upholds a form of affirmative action in very narrow circumstances (education) and only in very limited form, and even that is challenged in SCOTUS and likely to be overturned: https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-court-weighs-harvard-admissions-case-two-asian-americans-speak-out-and-allege-bias https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-co... Racist discrimination is an ugly thing, even when you call it pretty names like "affirmative action". If Affirmative Action was universally legal, than nothing would prevent racist/sexist discrimination as long as you have a nice-sounding excuse for it, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be rendered vacant. Women outnumber men 1.3:1 in college admissions, so Affirmative Action would let me openly discriminate in favor of men in hiring and promotion, as they are evidently a disadvantaged population compared to women.
      - ForHackernews 4y ago
        Men actually do benefit from soft affirmative action in college admissions because of this disparity. You can look this up for yourself, but here's one source[0]. Men are admitted at a higher rate, with worse grades and test scores, by selective universities that want to make sure they have a "balanced" class of undergraduates. [0] https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/article/the-truth-about-affirmative-action-for-men/ https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/arti...
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        It depends on the university, engineering-oriented schools admit women at higher rates (over 2x in the case of MIT and Harvey Mudd): https://money.com/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/ https://money.com/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/
        NeverFade 4y ago
        Yes, as mentioned above, there is (unfortunately) a controversial ruling (Grutter v. Bollinger) that allows for a form of discrimination in college admissions specifically. This is wrong and should stop. It's an example of SCOTUS judges allowing their political views to to override a clear interpretation of the law.
  - exolymph 4y ago
    De jure illegal, sure, but we all know it's de facto required for institutions of a certain size. Laws are only as good as the enforcement.
    - fche 4y ago
      praying for an appropriate opinion from the SCOTUS on the asians/harvard case
  - jgil 4y ago
    Affirmative action is not illegal. If you take action to prevent adverse impact to any protected class, that is not discrimination. If a company hires only white men and rejects every Asian candidate they have ever interviewed, or only fires Asian employees, what is your proposed remedy? Status quo? Check out the section Discrimination v. Affirmative Action [1] and a sample of significant discrimination case outcomes.[3] [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-607-affirmative-action https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-607-affirmative-action [2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/practical-significance https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/practical-significan... [3] https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-racecolor-casescovering-private-and-federal-sectors https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-rac...
    - NeverFade 4y ago
      A company (Twilio) is executing a mass layoff, and is implying that it will protect certain racial minorities from this layoff. Doing this, they are necessarily discriminating against any employee who does not belong to these racial groups. If you have employees A and B, both earning $100k/year, and your declining financials require you to save $100k/year, you must fire A or B. If you decide to fire A because s/he is white, even if it was just one factor, then you just fired a worker for their race, and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you manage to implement a policy that benefits a protected class (such as a particular race or sex) without depriving a different protected class, it would not be illegal. This is not the case we are discussing here, of racial considerations affecting hiring or termination decisions. Regarding the links you posted: It's no secret that the current administration is in favor of racist discrimination. They support Harvard's racist discrimination against Asians: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-12-08/biden-administration-asks-u-s-supreme-court-to-reject-harvard-affirmative-action-case https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-12-08/bid... The law remains the law, and racist discrimination remains just as objectionable, even if the current administration supports it. I personally hope that any employee who was subject to racist discrimination will seek justice in court.
      - Spivak 4y ago
        Change the framing from “white person was fired” to “black person was retained” and you’re suddenly back into affirmative action territory and the case whether it’s a civil rights violation becomes iffy. You don’t actually have to avoid depriving a protected class of anything by relative omission. Otherwise affirmative action and diversity programs would be illegal, and until the courts change their mind they’re currently allowed. If you allow your reasoning to be unconstrained there is no way to provide any benefit whatsoever in any form to particular races because that would be necessarily be depriving that benefit to the compliment.
vondur 4y ago
I'm pretty sure if you are white and laid off, you will have a pretty strong case for a lawsuit. I can't believe someone in legal wouldn't warn the leadership that putting out a press release stating this was a good idea.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  Legal probably approved the word "lens". And if this ends up in court they will say that "lens" means that we are aware of the impact layoffs have on our society, but does not change who we fire during a layoff, meaning even if we didn't do this through a lens the person suing would have still been let go.
  - abduhl 4y ago
    Then the laid off employees should organize as a class action so that "this specific person would have been let go" is no longer an acceptable defense and the question can be focused on whether using a "lens" to fire people based on race is illegal. If they argue that the lens means something else or that they didn't use the lens then Twilio has potentially just filed a materially false statement with the SEC.
  - NeverFade 4y ago
    If the layoff was done through the lens of racist consideration, and minority races were given preference, then the odds of a white or Asian person getting fired were higher. That's already illegal. Even if you can somehow prove in court that "white worker X" would still be fired had he been black (already a dicey and likely impossible feat), just the fact that the employer already admitted that this worker was under more risk for getting fired due to his race, a-priory creates a cause of action against the employer. If I say "I give preference to hiring men over women", and a woman is rejected and then sues, trying to show that I would not have hired her even if she was a man is arguing from a losing position. The policy itself is racist and illegal.
    - Natsu 4y ago
      As an aside, the Latin words you wanted are a priori, but you're right that race is a protected category and putting out a statement saying "we made firing decisions based on a protected category" is a bad idea for that reason.
OJFord 4y ago
It's so vague and weasel-wordy - if it's genuinely 'anti-racist' then (why mention it‽ and) it doesn't disproportionately affect white people, or anyone (race-based). I agree the implication seems very much like an intended 'affirmative'/'positive' action role-selection policy though. (I think such things are stupid - whether hiring/firing/anything - and bad for everybody, but I am white, so I try to keep that a 'lightly held' opinion.) In the UK the law is similar to your description, but large companies also have to publish stats, and the implication seems pretty much like quotas are good/the law, it's hard to imagine anyone/entity being found guilty of (as-written) illegal discrimination on the 'positive' side that tilts you more towards balance, IMO. (IANAL.)
- codefreeordie 4y ago
- akvadrako 4y ago
  Anti-racist doesn't mean against racism. It's more like anti-matter is to matter.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Anti- does mean 'against' or 'opposing'. Making it analogous to antimatter only works if you say something like 'a white person is antiracist to a black person'.
nonethewiser 4y ago
Lack of enforcement. And the ubiquitousness of racism in hiring and admissions.
- RSieger1 4y ago
RSieger1 4y ago
Because the chessboard has been moved and all the pieces rearranged.
idontpost 4y ago

by lr1970 4y ago

But is it plain illegal. For employment purposes Race is a protected class (at least in USA) and racial discrimination while hiring or firing violates federal law. How would they get away with this?

jballer 4y ago

They're betting that a lawsuit would be so wildly unpopular that people would rather leave the money (and the principle) behind than face social exile.

crackercrews 4y ago

Isn't affirmative action in hiring legal? Seems like this is just the same thing but for layoffs.

NeverFade 4y ago
It is absolutely illegal. It violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which: > outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Yes, that's the same act that makes it illegal to discriminate against racial minorities, women, religions, etc. Discrimination based on race is illegal, pure and simple. Hiding it under nice names like "affirmative action" does not change this fact.
- mrtranscendence 4y ago
  I don’t think this is right. Affirmative action has been upheld by the courts, and is currently in practice at some private employers (and is mandated for government contractors).
  - NeverFade 4y ago
    You are wrong. There is one judgement that upholds a form of affirmative action in very narrow circumstances (education) and only in very limited form, and even that is challenged in SCOTUS and likely to be overturned: https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-court-weighs-harvard-admissions-case-two-asian-americans-speak-out-and-allege-bias https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-co... Racist discrimination is an ugly thing, even when you call it pretty names like "affirmative action". If Affirmative Action was universally legal, than nothing would prevent racist/sexist discrimination as long as you have a nice-sounding excuse for it, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be rendered vacant. Women outnumber men 1.3:1 in college admissions, so Affirmative Action would let me openly discriminate in favor of men in hiring and promotion, as they are evidently a disadvantaged population compared to women.
    - ForHackernews 4y ago
      Men actually do benefit from soft affirmative action in college admissions because of this disparity. You can look this up for yourself, but here's one source[0]. Men are admitted at a higher rate, with worse grades and test scores, by selective universities that want to make sure they have a "balanced" class of undergraduates. [0] https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/article/the-truth-about-affirmative-action-for-men/ https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/arti...
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        It depends on the university, engineering-oriented schools admit women at higher rates (over 2x in the case of MIT and Harvey Mudd): https://money.com/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/ https://money.com/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/
      - NeverFade 4y ago
        Yes, as mentioned above, there is (unfortunately) a controversial ruling (Grutter v. Bollinger) that allows for a form of discrimination in college admissions specifically. This is wrong and should stop. It's an example of SCOTUS judges allowing their political views to to override a clear interpretation of the law.
- exolymph 4y ago
  De jure illegal, sure, but we all know it's de facto required for institutions of a certain size. Laws are only as good as the enforcement.
  - fche 4y ago
    praying for an appropriate opinion from the SCOTUS on the asians/harvard case
- jgil 4y ago
  Affirmative action is not illegal. If you take action to prevent adverse impact to any protected class, that is not discrimination. If a company hires only white men and rejects every Asian candidate they have ever interviewed, or only fires Asian employees, what is your proposed remedy? Status quo? Check out the section Discrimination v. Affirmative Action [1] and a sample of significant discrimination case outcomes.[3] [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-607-affirmative-action https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-607-affirmative-action [2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/practical-significance https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/practical-significan... [3] https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-racecolor-casescovering-private-and-federal-sectors https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-rac...
  - NeverFade 4y ago
    A company (Twilio) is executing a mass layoff, and is implying that it will protect certain racial minorities from this layoff. Doing this, they are necessarily discriminating against any employee who does not belong to these racial groups. If you have employees A and B, both earning $100k/year, and your declining financials require you to save $100k/year, you must fire A or B. If you decide to fire A because s/he is white, even if it was just one factor, then you just fired a worker for their race, and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you manage to implement a policy that benefits a protected class (such as a particular race or sex) without depriving a different protected class, it would not be illegal. This is not the case we are discussing here, of racial considerations affecting hiring or termination decisions. Regarding the links you posted: It's no secret that the current administration is in favor of racist discrimination. They support Harvard's racist discrimination against Asians: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-12-08/biden-administration-asks-u-s-supreme-court-to-reject-harvard-affirmative-action-case https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-12-08/bid... The law remains the law, and racist discrimination remains just as objectionable, even if the current administration supports it. I personally hope that any employee who was subject to racist discrimination will seek justice in court.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Change the framing from “white person was fired” to “black person was retained” and you’re suddenly back into affirmative action territory and the case whether it’s a civil rights violation becomes iffy. You don’t actually have to avoid depriving a protected class of anything by relative omission. Otherwise affirmative action and diversity programs would be illegal, and until the courts change their mind they’re currently allowed. If you allow your reasoning to be unconstrained there is no way to provide any benefit whatsoever in any form to particular races because that would be necessarily be depriving that benefit to the compliment.

vondur 4y ago

I'm pretty sure if you are white and laid off, you will have a pretty strong case for a lawsuit. I can't believe someone in legal wouldn't warn the leadership that putting out a press release stating this was a good idea.

gitfan86 4y ago
Legal probably approved the word "lens". And if this ends up in court they will say that "lens" means that we are aware of the impact layoffs have on our society, but does not change who we fire during a layoff, meaning even if we didn't do this through a lens the person suing would have still been let go.
- abduhl 4y ago
  Then the laid off employees should organize as a class action so that "this specific person would have been let go" is no longer an acceptable defense and the question can be focused on whether using a "lens" to fire people based on race is illegal. If they argue that the lens means something else or that they didn't use the lens then Twilio has potentially just filed a materially false statement with the SEC.
- NeverFade 4y ago
  If the layoff was done through the lens of racist consideration, and minority races were given preference, then the odds of a white or Asian person getting fired were higher. That's already illegal. Even if you can somehow prove in court that "white worker X" would still be fired had he been black (already a dicey and likely impossible feat), just the fact that the employer already admitted that this worker was under more risk for getting fired due to his race, a-priory creates a cause of action against the employer. If I say "I give preference to hiring men over women", and a woman is rejected and then sues, trying to show that I would not have hired her even if she was a man is arguing from a losing position. The policy itself is racist and illegal.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    As an aside, the Latin words you wanted are a priori, but you're right that race is a protected category and putting out a statement saying "we made firing decisions based on a protected category" is a bad idea for that reason.

OJFord 4y ago

It's so vague and weasel-wordy - if it's genuinely 'anti-racist' then (why mention it‽ and) it doesn't disproportionately affect white people, or anyone (race-based). I agree the implication seems very much like an intended 'affirmative'/'positive' action role-selection policy though. (I think such things are stupid - whether hiring/firing/anything - and bad for everybody, but I am white, so I try to keep that a 'lightly held' opinion.) In the UK the law is similar to your description, but large companies also have to publish stats, and the implication seems pretty much like quotas are good/the law, it's hard to imagine anyone/entity being found guilty of (as-written) illegal discrimination on the 'positive' side that tilts you more towards balance, IMO. (IANAL.)

codefreeordie 4y ago
akvadrako 4y ago
Anti-racist doesn't mean against racism. It's more like anti-matter is to matter.
- OJFord 4y ago
  Anti- does mean 'against' or 'opposing'. Making it analogous to antimatter only works if you say something like 'a white person is antiracist to a black person'.

nonethewiser 4y ago

Lack of enforcement. And the ubiquitousness of racism in hiring and admissions.

RSieger1 4y ago

RSieger1 4y ago

Because the chessboard has been moved and all the pieces rearranged.

idontpost 4y ago