5 ms·
I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like a potential lawsuit. I do wonder what sort of whistle blower status you could be awarded in this circumstance if any at al
by pylua 4y ago
I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like a potential lawsuit. I do wonder what sort of whistle blower status you could be awarded in this circumstance if any at all.
- altairprime 4y agoThe lawsuit would flop if there’s more men than women in the group being hired for, since it’s absolutely permissible to correct diversity imbalances. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
- windows2020 4y agoJust wondering when diversity is balanced. I guess the first part would be deciding how to measure diversity. Maybe put people into different buckets based on their skin color, sex, gender and disability status. Then, the next part would be deciding if we want an even split or counts representative of the field (unless that's incorrect too) or maybe based on demographics.
- altairprime 4y agoThe current precedent is that it’s fine to set short-term curative diversity targets and selectively hire towards them.
- pylua 4y agoI am not a lawyer but I am curious as to this. Maybe it depends on your jurisdiction? What is the legal precedent for this? I am also curious -- if this is the case, then why not state explicitly in the job req that men need not apply -- if there is no fear of legal consequences? Seems like that would have saved everyone a lot of time.
- amscanne 4y agoI’m pretty sure that the law doesn’t allow discrimination to correct diversity imbalances. DEI initiatives are about driving recruiting efforts and targeting towards underrepresented groups (e.g. having recruiters reaching out to qualified women, running recruiting drives at colleges with high minority populations, etc.) but the ultimate hiring decision cannot exclude anyone on the basis of a protected class.
- altairprime 4y agoSelectivity is not necessarily discriminatory. For further reading, I recommend: - United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 US 193 (1979) - Johnson v. VTA; 480 U.S. 616 (1987)
- amscanne 4y agoThanks, these are interesting cases. However, I suspect that these both hinge of the fact that they are related to specific training and internal promotion, which (to me at least) seems like it’s easier to judge that those not selected do not have their interests “unnecessarily trammeled” (they are still employed and will have other opportunities to make progress in the organization). Curious if you know of any pertaining to the external hiring decision itself? I am not debating anything, but the nuances are interesting to me.
- altairprime 4y agoThe references above are all that I have prepared for today, apologies.
- tharne 4y ago> (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.) Good thing you're not a lawyer and this not legal advice because what you're suggesting is in a legal gray area at best.
- altairprime 4y agoTake care not to mistake “not your lawyer” as “not a lawyer”.
- tharne 4y agoWhoops, my bad. That makes your previous comment look even worse though, not better.
- altairprime 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33587478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33587478
- LorenPechtel 4y agoBut the people discriminated against don't know it.
- pylua 4y agoI wonder if you can get whistle blower protection if you know your team is discriminating against a protected group, and who you can even report that to.