4 ms·

> But you can favor people for other reasons, which may result in more people of a certain race No, that is mainly the point of the civil rights act.EEOCs enti

by _8j50 3y ago

> But you can favor people for other reasons, which may result in more people of a certain race No, that is mainly the point of the civil rights act.EEOCs entire purpose is to sue/prosecute orgs that discriminate without being direct about it. If you only interview white sounding names for example, there is no proof of direct discrimination or if a policy you have has the effect of excluding a protected class. The bar for proving malice, as with all things legal is if a "reasonable person" can recognize the indirect effect of those actions as harming protected people because then intent to discriminate can be proven.

nonethewiser 3y ago
> No, that is mainly the point of the civil rights act.EEOCs entire purpose is to sue/prosecute orgs that discriminate without being direct about it. Having unequal outcomes doesnt mean your are discriminating.
- _8j50 3y ago
  Yes but if it is a pattern anyone can recognize it is cause for investigation and if there were pattern breaking applicants then that is probably a suit. Of course, a court will decide case by case if what happened was actually discrimination. Even with all this, there is a crapton of actual discrimination just based on people's names. Another commentie on this post was mentioning how their employer was tossing out all indian sounding names, i have seen similar things as well. This is very common and the law allows lawsuits based on patterns of unequal outcomes and in civil cases, the defendant has to prove the accusation is false (opposite of innocent until proven guilty).
- triceratops 3y ago
  Law isn't code. Believe it or not judges, and regular people, can suss out when someone is trying to be clever with their illegal discrimination. If admission to a college is based on a standardized test that is administered only on Sunday mornings, no one is going to buy that it is not designed to discriminate against devout Christians. It doesn't matter if the college swears up and down that that's the only day they have proctors or testing sites available. You don't have to say or even imply you're doing it for an illegal reason. Unless there's a legitimate reason for applying whatever criteria you choose to apply, you have to check whether they're a proxy for a protected class. This definitely applies to hiring. I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to college admissions. Does having a parent who studied at Harvard better qualify a student to study there?

by _8j50 3y ago

nonethewiser 3y ago

> No, that is mainly the point of the civil rights act.EEOCs entire purpose is to sue/prosecute orgs that discriminate without being direct about it. Having unequal outcomes doesnt mean your are discriminating.

_8j50 3y ago
Yes but if it is a pattern anyone can recognize it is cause for investigation and if there were pattern breaking applicants then that is probably a suit. Of course, a court will decide case by case if what happened was actually discrimination. Even with all this, there is a crapton of actual discrimination just based on people's names. Another commentie on this post was mentioning how their employer was tossing out all indian sounding names, i have seen similar things as well. This is very common and the law allows lawsuits based on patterns of unequal outcomes and in civil cases, the defendant has to prove the accusation is false (opposite of innocent until proven guilty).
triceratops 3y ago
Law isn't code. Believe it or not judges, and regular people, can suss out when someone is trying to be clever with their illegal discrimination. If admission to a college is based on a standardized test that is administered only on Sunday mornings, no one is going to buy that it is not designed to discriminate against devout Christians. It doesn't matter if the college swears up and down that that's the only day they have proctors or testing sites available. You don't have to say or even imply you're doing it for an illegal reason. Unless there's a legitimate reason for applying whatever criteria you choose to apply, you have to check whether they're a proxy for a protected class. This definitely applies to hiring. I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to college admissions. Does having a parent who studied at Harvard better qualify a student to study there?