3 ms·

Making sure you aren't disproportionately firing people of a certain race for reasons other than performance. For example, maybe a particular dept you don't nee

Making sure you aren't disproportionately firing people of a certain race for reasons other than performance. For example, maybe a particular dept you don't need is coincidentally in an area with more black people and is disproportionately black. You might let go of people in other departments and transfer some of the minority employees. Or maybe you just fire people randomly. You at least look at your list and make sure it's not disproportionately one race or full of minorities, and if it is, find out why.

polski-g 4y ago
It is unlawful to even consider protected characteristics in any employment decision. You can't look at characteristics for hiring, firing, promoting, not promoting, or even transferring.
- rparet 4y ago
  This is completely untrue. Google “adverse impact hr” for a quick education on this topic.
  - the_doctah 4y ago
    Why do you think this phrase, which describes the outcome, makes the action any less illegal?
- chadash 4y ago
  I am skeptical that a company the size of Twilio wouldn't run this by employment lawyers first. Do you have any sources to cite here?
  - the_doctah 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
    - chadash 4y ago
      "The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized an exception to Title VII’s protections from discrimination in industries where employers can establish a historical imbalance or disparity in the workforce. In United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber, 443 US 193 (1979), the Supreme Court considered an affirmative action program that was implemented to increase the amount of black skilled craft workers. Half of the positions in the training program were reserved for black workers. Because this training scheme was intended to eliminate longstanding patterns of racial segregation and Title VII “did not inten[d] to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps” to ensure the goal to prevent discrimination was implemented, the program was upheld. This same theory was applied to the underrepresentation of women in Johnson v. Transp. Agency, Santa Clara Cnty., Cal., 480 U.S. 616 (1987). A male worker had challenged the agency’s selection of a female worker over him. Here, the court upheld the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency’s plan to “achieve a statistically measurable yearly improvement in hiring and promoting minorities and women in job classification where they are underrepresented.” Where no specific number or quota was required but short-range goals were implemented and adjusted yearly, the agency could permissibly take sex into account as one factor in deciding whether to promote women." source: http://www.epspros.com/news-resources/white-papers/2020/the-balancing-act-of-diversity-hiring.html http://www.epspros.com/news-resources/white-papers/2020/the-...
  - anvic 4y ago
    All companies run everything by their lawyers and still they are found doing illegal stuff from time to time.
    - chadash 4y ago
      Of course. Sometimes companies do things that are blatantly illegal and they know it. Usually they don't put these things down in SEC filings. For example, I'm sure that many hedge funds routinely trade on insider information and know that what they are doing is illegal. Most are smart enough not to publicize this. In this case, my point is not that this is legal or illegal. My point is that they probably ran this by their lawyers and at the very least those lawyers probably said "yeah, you have a reasonable case if this goes to court". If the lawyers said "yeah, this is definitely illegal, you are going to get sued, it's an easy case and you are going to lose", then sure, it's possible that Twilio decided to do this anyway, but I don't see that as likely. They probably have at least a legal theory on why this is permissible.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  Checking to make sure you're not illegally discriminating in the layoffs process is not "considering protected characteristics." FFS... Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32857237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32857237
  - crackercrews 4y ago
    You're assuming that being anti-racist just means checking to make sure you're not illegally discriminating. My guess is someone sues and we'll all find out what exactly constitutes an anti-racist lens.
- thebradbain 4y ago
  No it’s not. It’s illegal to discriminate based on that consideration. It’s not illegal to take someone’s race, sexuality, or any other protected class into consideration. When you hire a man, it’s not like you don’t know they’re a man. The issue would be if you ONLY hire men (intentionally or not).
ars 4y ago
And then what? What do you do if you only care about performance in decisions, and when you are done you find out you fired more minorities than others?
- TheBigSalad 4y ago
  I'm not a CEO, but I think if you can prove that it was based on performance, excluding racial factors, then you are good to go. So you think the minorities they hired are disproportionately bad? Even if you are racist you must realize that they probably have fewer minorities than the general population so they already are limited to statistically higher performing people per minority group.

polski-g 4y ago

It is unlawful to even consider protected characteristics in any employment decision. You can't look at characteristics for hiring, firing, promoting, not promoting, or even transferring.

rparet 4y ago
This is completely untrue. Google “adverse impact hr” for a quick education on this topic.
- the_doctah 4y ago
  Why do you think this phrase, which describes the outcome, makes the action any less illegal?
chadash 4y ago
I am skeptical that a company the size of Twilio wouldn't run this by employment lawyers first. Do you have any sources to cite here?
- the_doctah 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
  - chadash 4y ago
    "The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized an exception to Title VII’s protections from discrimination in industries where employers can establish a historical imbalance or disparity in the workforce. In United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber, 443 US 193 (1979), the Supreme Court considered an affirmative action program that was implemented to increase the amount of black skilled craft workers. Half of the positions in the training program were reserved for black workers. Because this training scheme was intended to eliminate longstanding patterns of racial segregation and Title VII “did not inten[d] to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps” to ensure the goal to prevent discrimination was implemented, the program was upheld. This same theory was applied to the underrepresentation of women in Johnson v. Transp. Agency, Santa Clara Cnty., Cal., 480 U.S. 616 (1987). A male worker had challenged the agency’s selection of a female worker over him. Here, the court upheld the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency’s plan to “achieve a statistically measurable yearly improvement in hiring and promoting minorities and women in job classification where they are underrepresented.” Where no specific number or quota was required but short-range goals were implemented and adjusted yearly, the agency could permissibly take sex into account as one factor in deciding whether to promote women." source: http://www.epspros.com/news-resources/white-papers/2020/the-balancing-act-of-diversity-hiring.html http://www.epspros.com/news-resources/white-papers/2020/the-...
- anvic 4y ago
  All companies run everything by their lawyers and still they are found doing illegal stuff from time to time.
  - chadash 4y ago
    Of course. Sometimes companies do things that are blatantly illegal and they know it. Usually they don't put these things down in SEC filings. For example, I'm sure that many hedge funds routinely trade on insider information and know that what they are doing is illegal. Most are smart enough not to publicize this. In this case, my point is not that this is legal or illegal. My point is that they probably ran this by their lawyers and at the very least those lawyers probably said "yeah, you have a reasonable case if this goes to court". If the lawyers said "yeah, this is definitely illegal, you are going to get sued, it's an easy case and you are going to lose", then sure, it's possible that Twilio decided to do this anyway, but I don't see that as likely. They probably have at least a legal theory on why this is permissible.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
Checking to make sure you're not illegally discriminating in the layoffs process is not "considering protected characteristics." FFS... Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32857237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32857237
- crackercrews 4y ago
  You're assuming that being anti-racist just means checking to make sure you're not illegally discriminating. My guess is someone sues and we'll all find out what exactly constitutes an anti-racist lens.
thebradbain 4y ago
No it’s not. It’s illegal to discriminate based on that consideration. It’s not illegal to take someone’s race, sexuality, or any other protected class into consideration. When you hire a man, it’s not like you don’t know they’re a man. The issue would be if you ONLY hire men (intentionally or not).

ars 4y ago

And then what? What do you do if you only care about performance in decisions, and when you are done you find out you fired more minorities than others?

TheBigSalad 4y ago
I'm not a CEO, but I think if you can prove that it was based on performance, excluding racial factors, then you are good to go. So you think the minorities they hired are disproportionately bad? Even if you are racist you must realize that they probably have fewer minorities than the general population so they already are limited to statistically higher performing people per minority group.