4 ms·

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 socie

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.
dominotw 4y ago
> but does not change who we fire during a layoff what does 'carried out through a lens' mean. Through means it was put through that lens?
- alttab 4y ago
  a lens translates things to a different view. so they either justified it somehow, or it changed the outcome. not a hair I'd want to be splitting in court.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Yeah the comment means nothing if it did not impact their decision.
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    Exactly my point. White Male CEOs are afraid of an article in a major newspaper showing them being rich next to a picture of a poor minority that they just fired. So they put a PR spin on the firings.

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.

dominotw 4y ago

> but does not change who we fire during a layoff what does 'carried out through a lens' mean. Through means it was put through that lens?

alttab 4y ago
a lens translates things to a different view. so they either justified it somehow, or it changed the outcome. not a hair I'd want to be splitting in court.
nonethewiser 4y ago
Yeah the comment means nothing if it did not impact their decision.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  Exactly my point. White Male CEOs are afraid of an article in a major newspaper showing them being rich next to a picture of a poor minority that they just fired. So they put a PR spin on the firings.