11 ms·

I assume that is a US thing. How does that exactly work? In what sense are these people protected?

freeone3000 4y ago
You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black. These characteristics are protected in the sense that discrimination against them in certain areas is illegal.
- michpoch 4y ago
  Ok, but then the US Air Force would not hire anyone shorter than 64 inches or taller than 77 inches. Your height is a part of your genetics, you can't change it. Why are people outside of this range not protected? Am I oversimplifying something here?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Why are people outside of this range not protected? Because legislation has been written to target certain characteristics. The experience of short people in American history doesn't quite match that of black, gay, or disabled people, and thus it hasn't been legislated.
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      If there weren't a BFOQ then this could be seen as veiled sex discrimination since women are shorter than men on average.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    They are called bona fide occupational qualifications. Even a private business can discriminate against say, an actor who can’t play a particular role due to the race or gender of the character. Same goes with certain jobs that involve lifting or an expected level physical fitness.
    - michpoch 4y ago
      Could you say that you need a white male bartender for your pub in rural Texas, because your customers are racist and sexist and anyone else would make them feel uncomfortable? Or would that "choice" be limited by the protected status?
      - LarryMullins 4y ago
        Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.
        aidenn0 4y ago
        In addition, mere customer satisfaction secondary to the primary job is not enough to establish BFOQ; it's a thin line though as Hooters seems to hide behind BFOQ (thus essentially stating that the primary reason for their serving staff is sex appeal), while flight attendants cannot. I suppose if you had an airline called "cleavage air" and had all the flight attendants wear low-cut tops, then you might get away with it.
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        Indeed. The law says that sex is characteristic that may be a BFOQ, and in the case of Hooters it seems to be. BFOQs may apply to sex, religion, and national origin, but not the other protected classes.
        michpoch 4y ago
        Could Hooters then reject a woman based on visual trait connected to a race, arguing that it doesn't give her the required "sex appeal"? Skin colour would be of course to obvious, but lips size or body shape?
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        No. The only way Hooters could in principle discriminate on the basis of race is if they come up with some first amendment pretext for it; e.g. the waitress job is actually an artistic performance and for some reason the art demands the performer be a certain race. That works for movie productions, but for a bar hiring waitresses? In practice it wouldn't work because the courts and the public would both write you off as an obvious racist.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    Many reasons that's not protected: 1. The "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act" specifically bans using "Genetic Information" in certain circumstances, which is generally understood to mean e.g. DNA testing. Discriminating on height does not fall into this. 2. You could still fall into issues with e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having a height requirement if e.g. far more men than women fall into that height range, however there are exceptions[A] built into that act when a job has specific requirements, one being you can ask for "male models" to model clothing targeted at men. A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- donmaq 4y ago
  > You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'. "Protected class" isn't very protected, as it leaves burden of proof to the victim, who needs to lawyer up & chase the proof via discovery.
  - davidgay 4y ago
    > So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'. No, for large companies (those at risk of being sued) it works the other way round: they collect very detailed data to objectively justify any firing, otherwise they are at high risk of losing a discrimination lawsuit. Hence "improvement plans", "needs improvement" ratings, etc, etc. It is likely true that small and medium companies can get away with abuse though.
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    Exactly, but there are even more fundamental problems with all these identity laws. 1. They're inherently unjust and anti-equality. 2. In the case of stuff like race and gender, the law doesn't even clearly define what terms like "black" and "white" are supposed to mean. There is no scientific definition because in physical reality race doesn't exist. It's assumed everyone follows race ideology, but even if we assumed that to be true then the premise of such suits is that someone committed a thought crime. Such cases are bound to lead to wrongful convictions as well as actual discrimination going unpunished because it can't be proven. These discrimination suits are the modern day equivalent of medieval witch trials. 3. They create division and conflict. That may be an intentional feature instead of a bug though.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      i don't quite agree. the law provides that being part of a protected group can not be used as a reason. that's enough. there is no need to prove a thought-crime. there is only need to prove that there is no justifiable reason for the action that lead to the discrimination, eg no justifiable reason to fire someone or to deny service. finding the real reason for the discrimination is not necessary
ceejayoz 4y ago
In the legal sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States

You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black. These characteristics are protected in the sense that discrimination against them in certain areas is illegal.

michpoch 4y ago
Ok, but then the US Air Force would not hire anyone shorter than 64 inches or taller than 77 inches. Your height is a part of your genetics, you can't change it. Why are people outside of this range not protected? Am I oversimplifying something here?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Why are people outside of this range not protected? Because legislation has been written to target certain characteristics. The experience of short people in American history doesn't quite match that of black, gay, or disabled people, and thus it hasn't been legislated.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    If there weren't a BFOQ then this could be seen as veiled sex discrimination since women are shorter than men on average.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  They are called bona fide occupational qualifications. Even a private business can discriminate against say, an actor who can’t play a particular role due to the race or gender of the character. Same goes with certain jobs that involve lifting or an expected level physical fitness.
  - michpoch 4y ago
    Could you say that you need a white male bartender for your pub in rural Texas, because your customers are racist and sexist and anyone else would make them feel uncomfortable? Or would that "choice" be limited by the protected status?
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.
      - aidenn0 4y ago
        In addition, mere customer satisfaction secondary to the primary job is not enough to establish BFOQ; it's a thin line though as Hooters seems to hide behind BFOQ (thus essentially stating that the primary reason for their serving staff is sex appeal), while flight attendants cannot. I suppose if you had an airline called "cleavage air" and had all the flight attendants wear low-cut tops, then you might get away with it.
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        Indeed. The law says that sex is characteristic that may be a BFOQ, and in the case of Hooters it seems to be. BFOQs may apply to sex, religion, and national origin, but not the other protected classes.
        michpoch 4y ago
        Could Hooters then reject a woman based on visual trait connected to a race, arguing that it doesn't give her the required "sex appeal"? Skin colour would be of course to obvious, but lips size or body shape?
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        No. The only way Hooters could in principle discriminate on the basis of race is if they come up with some first amendment pretext for it; e.g. the waitress job is actually an artistic performance and for some reason the art demands the performer be a certain race. That works for movie productions, but for a bar hiring waitresses? In practice it wouldn't work because the courts and the public would both write you off as an obvious racist.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- aidenn0 4y ago
  Many reasons that's not protected: 1. The "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act" specifically bans using "Genetic Information" in certain circumstances, which is generally understood to mean e.g. DNA testing. Discriminating on height does not fall into this. 2. You could still fall into issues with e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having a height requirement if e.g. far more men than women fall into that height range, however there are exceptions[A] built into that act when a job has specific requirements, one being you can ask for "male models" to model clothing targeted at men. A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
donmaq 4y ago
> You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'. "Protected class" isn't very protected, as it leaves burden of proof to the victim, who needs to lawyer up & chase the proof via discovery.
- davidgay 4y ago
  > So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'. No, for large companies (those at risk of being sued) it works the other way round: they collect very detailed data to objectively justify any firing, otherwise they are at high risk of losing a discrimination lawsuit. Hence "improvement plans", "needs improvement" ratings, etc, etc. It is likely true that small and medium companies can get away with abuse though.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Exactly, but there are even more fundamental problems with all these identity laws. 1. They're inherently unjust and anti-equality. 2. In the case of stuff like race and gender, the law doesn't even clearly define what terms like "black" and "white" are supposed to mean. There is no scientific definition because in physical reality race doesn't exist. It's assumed everyone follows race ideology, but even if we assumed that to be true then the premise of such suits is that someone committed a thought crime. Such cases are bound to lead to wrongful convictions as well as actual discrimination going unpunished because it can't be proven. These discrimination suits are the modern day equivalent of medieval witch trials. 3. They create division and conflict. That may be an intentional feature instead of a bug though.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    i don't quite agree. the law provides that being part of a protected group can not be used as a reason. that's enough. there is no need to prove a thought-crime. there is only need to prove that there is no justifiable reason for the action that lead to the discrimination, eg no justifiable reason to fire someone or to deny service. finding the real reason for the discrimination is not necessary

ceejayoz 4y ago

In the legal sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States