4 ms·
> Except your own comment highlighted exactly what’s wrong with that: without the data the court won’t know how to rule. And the burden of proof is on the accu
by Manuel_D 4y ago
> Except your own comment highlighted exactly what’s wrong with that: without the data the court won’t know how to rule.
And the burden of proof is on the accuser. The court doesn't just say "we don't have the data, so we must assume it's what the accuser says".
> If you insist that the complainant is the one who has to investigate the salaries and work performance of all her coworkers, you’re immediately setting her up for failure.
Yes! And that's exactly how the court works: the burden of proof is on the accuser.
> Requiring the company itself to record this information can provide evidence that they’re abusing employees
And why on earth would the company want to do this, when it could potentially harm them?
- escapedmoose 4y agoThe company won’t want to record this info, but requiring them to do so could prevent them from abusing employees using the methods stated above.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoCivil litigation places less burden of proof in the accuser than legal litigation. They don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable amount of doubt, so all they have to do is get the jury/judge to believe the violation is likely.
- Manuel_D 4y agoThey don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt like in a criminal trial, but the burden of proof is still on the accuser. The accuser has to convince the jury that discrimination occurred, it's not a default assumption that companies are biased and they have to have the data to prove they are not.