9 ms·

Black Atlanta venture capital firm sued for racial discrimination

44 points by cdme 3y ago

nullc 3y ago
https://archive.is/KMM4Q https://archive.is/KMM4Q
- jmclnx 3y ago
  Thanks for the link, but getting chaptas even from the archive, so I guess I will skip this one :)
  - GloomyBoots 3y ago
    It happens if you use Cloudflare DNS. Not Cloudflare’s fault. Wish the owner of the site could be bothered to make it work with such a major service.
superkuh 3y ago
The practice is clearly a violation if the people were employees. The lawsuit itself is just as clearly motivated from a nasty ideology. What is not clear is if the employement protected classes apply to venture capital funding choices. As I understand it such regulation does not exist in the USA except as proposed in some state bills which have not been made into law. Given that the lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed.
- Dig1t 3y ago
  If it is decided that it is okay to discriminate like this, then the precedent will be set and it will become okay to create a "whites-only", "Indian-only", "Chinese-only" investment fund as well. Seems like a bad precedent to set.
  - SpaceManNabs 3y ago
    Native americans have sovereign land within the United States. I think it is ok to make special cases to correct specific historical disparities for particular minorities, but our law system is not equipped for it, and there is too much disagreement and polarization to make minor concessions possible. And lawyers love to play with corner cases to the detriment of the rest of us.
    - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
      I'm on a reservation right now buying weed. White Earth in Minnesota. Great place
HillRat 3y ago
This is headed to a Rule 56 SJ on standing grounds. If affected individuals want to sue over reverse discrimination claims, they can put their name to the lawsuit and take their PR lumps for doing so, rather than hiding behind a political pressure group with no cognizable direct interests. This is just grandstanding by lawyers who know better and should be exposed to rule 11 sanctions for wasting the defendant’s and court’s time with an abusive filing.
- SpaceManNabs 3y ago
  From what I understand, if the SCOTUS takes on lawsuits from people without standing, why can't other courts? I do agree this is ridiculous.
  - bastardoperator 3y ago
    Let's never forget SCOTUS allowed a women to claim she couldn't start a website business unless she was allowed to discriminate against LGBT... and won.
- joshuaheard 3y ago
  A group can sue on behalf of its members. Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977)
  - HillRat 3y ago
    Not my world (and I think GA has tighter org and assoc standings rules that would come into play here, too), but I’d argue that there’s a need to show individualized proof of harm here that runs afoul of the third Hunt prong. (This is pretty transparently an effort to avoid disclosing the plaintiffs’ names, so I’m not inclined to give this group the benefit of the doubt here.) Also, upvoting you b/c Hunt is definitely applicable here!
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      > I think GA has tighter org and assoc standings rules This was filed in federal court, so only federal rules regarding standing would apply. Also, this organization is led by the SFFA guy, who seems to have dotted his i's and crossed his t's with regard to standing in that lawsuit. There were never any serious discussions about standing in that case, and this one seems to be similarly structured. As a (former) lawyer, my educated guess is that standing will not be a major issue in this case. What stood out most to me is that it refers to the Civil Rights act of 1866!
demarq 3y ago
> Between 2009 and 2017, only 0.0006% of VC funding went to businesses started by Black women, according to nonprofit advocacy group Digitalundivided. Fearless Fund aims to help bridge the gap. The case is clear, why go after the little funding available? Is anyone really convinced that white men as a whole are disadvantaged because they can’t get funding from these three black women?
- chucksta 3y ago
  >In total, three white and Asian women business owners are part of the lawsuit
  - demarq 3y ago
    I stand corrected. So three white women felt that out of all the VC funds in the nation, they felt threatened by these three black women? It’s even worse that it’s women going after other women. Of all the startups I’ve worked for I’ve never been able to say that my CEO was a black, white or Asian woman. That’s not some mistake. EDIT: understandably this has been locked for replies (by the powers that be not me). So before asking any question note that I will not be able to reply once the edit button expires. AAAAAND I can reply again. But disappointed tbh, but I understand
    - b59831 3y ago
      [dead]
    - searealist 3y ago
      Why did you drop “Asian”?
      - demarq 3y ago
        Because they don’t seem particularly favoured by any metric (not an advantaged majority in the space), so it's strange she would be behind this. Uniformity or a pattern isn’t a requirement for an argument, consistency is. And I’m consistent about the idea that people who are doing great in one area shouldn’t be pushing down other people trying to get to the same place.
jedberg 3y ago
This boils down to equality vs equity [0] It starts with the belief that minorities have been systemically discriminated against for all of our history, and are at a systemic disadvantage today, even if some (or even all) of those systems are removed. Equality means treating everyone the same, equity means treating people differently based on their needs and history. If you think everyone should be treated the same, then you agree with the plaintiffs. If you think everyone should be treated differently so that they can all experience the same outcome, then you side with the defendants. And if you think systemic discrimination isn't a thing, maybe this will change your mind: Imagine a building owner who hates people in wheelchairs, so they build their building with no ramps, only second floor entrances with stairs. After a while they sell the building and the new owners come in. They have nothing against wheelchairs, but their building is still inaccessible to wheelchairs. So the discrimination is gone, but the system that was in place in the past still affects the people in wheelchairs. The only way to fix this problem is it dedicate resources to building ramps, which means treating people in wheelchairs differently by spending extra resources to accommodate them. Do you think the folks in wheelchairs should be accommodated? [0] https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/infographics/visualizing-health-equity.html https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/infographics/v...
- rjbwork 3y ago
  Do you think the folks in wheelchairs should be accommodated? Yes. But I don't think you should be able to build an apartment building and then explicitly ban non wheelchair users. It's a two way street.
  - esalman 3y ago
    The irony is lost on you.
    - rjbwork 3y ago
      Apparently. Can you elaborate?
      - 3y ago
deepfriedchokes 3y ago
If we target class instead of race we will likely end up helping the same people without violating any laws.

44 points by cdme 3y ago

nullc 3y ago

https://archive.is/KMM4Q https://archive.is/KMM4Q

jmclnx 3y ago
Thanks for the link, but getting chaptas even from the archive, so I guess I will skip this one :)
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  It happens if you use Cloudflare DNS. Not Cloudflare’s fault. Wish the owner of the site could be bothered to make it work with such a major service.

superkuh 3y ago

The practice is clearly a violation if the people were employees. The lawsuit itself is just as clearly motivated from a nasty ideology. What is not clear is if the employement protected classes apply to venture capital funding choices. As I understand it such regulation does not exist in the USA except as proposed in some state bills which have not been made into law. Given that the lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed.

Dig1t 3y ago
If it is decided that it is okay to discriminate like this, then the precedent will be set and it will become okay to create a "whites-only", "Indian-only", "Chinese-only" investment fund as well. Seems like a bad precedent to set.
- SpaceManNabs 3y ago
  Native americans have sovereign land within the United States. I think it is ok to make special cases to correct specific historical disparities for particular minorities, but our law system is not equipped for it, and there is too much disagreement and polarization to make minor concessions possible. And lawyers love to play with corner cases to the detriment of the rest of us.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
    I'm on a reservation right now buying weed. White Earth in Minnesota. Great place

HillRat 3y ago

This is headed to a Rule 56 SJ on standing grounds. If affected individuals want to sue over reverse discrimination claims, they can put their name to the lawsuit and take their PR lumps for doing so, rather than hiding behind a political pressure group with no cognizable direct interests. This is just grandstanding by lawyers who know better and should be exposed to rule 11 sanctions for wasting the defendant’s and court’s time with an abusive filing.

SpaceManNabs 3y ago
From what I understand, if the SCOTUS takes on lawsuits from people without standing, why can't other courts? I do agree this is ridiculous.
- bastardoperator 3y ago
  Let's never forget SCOTUS allowed a women to claim she couldn't start a website business unless she was allowed to discriminate against LGBT... and won.
joshuaheard 3y ago
A group can sue on behalf of its members. Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977)
- HillRat 3y ago
  Not my world (and I think GA has tighter org and assoc standings rules that would come into play here, too), but I’d argue that there’s a need to show individualized proof of harm here that runs afoul of the third Hunt prong. (This is pretty transparently an effort to avoid disclosing the plaintiffs’ names, so I’m not inclined to give this group the benefit of the doubt here.) Also, upvoting you b/c Hunt is definitely applicable here!
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    > I think GA has tighter org and assoc standings rules This was filed in federal court, so only federal rules regarding standing would apply. Also, this organization is led by the SFFA guy, who seems to have dotted his i's and crossed his t's with regard to standing in that lawsuit. There were never any serious discussions about standing in that case, and this one seems to be similarly structured. As a (former) lawyer, my educated guess is that standing will not be a major issue in this case. What stood out most to me is that it refers to the Civil Rights act of 1866!

demarq 3y ago

> Between 2009 and 2017, only 0.0006% of VC funding went to businesses started by Black women, according to nonprofit advocacy group Digitalundivided. Fearless Fund aims to help bridge the gap. The case is clear, why go after the little funding available? Is anyone really convinced that white men as a whole are disadvantaged because they can’t get funding from these three black women?

chucksta 3y ago
>In total, three white and Asian women business owners are part of the lawsuit
- demarq 3y ago
  I stand corrected. So three white women felt that out of all the VC funds in the nation, they felt threatened by these three black women? It’s even worse that it’s women going after other women. Of all the startups I’ve worked for I’ve never been able to say that my CEO was a black, white or Asian woman. That’s not some mistake. EDIT: understandably this has been locked for replies (by the powers that be not me). So before asking any question note that I will not be able to reply once the edit button expires. AAAAAND I can reply again. But disappointed tbh, but I understand
  - b59831 3y ago
    [dead]
  - searealist 3y ago
    Why did you drop “Asian”?
    - demarq 3y ago
      Because they don’t seem particularly favoured by any metric (not an advantaged majority in the space), so it's strange she would be behind this. Uniformity or a pattern isn’t a requirement for an argument, consistency is. And I’m consistent about the idea that people who are doing great in one area shouldn’t be pushing down other people trying to get to the same place.

jedberg 3y ago

This boils down to equality vs equity [0] It starts with the belief that minorities have been systemically discriminated against for all of our history, and are at a systemic disadvantage today, even if some (or even all) of those systems are removed. Equality means treating everyone the same, equity means treating people differently based on their needs and history. If you think everyone should be treated the same, then you agree with the plaintiffs. If you think everyone should be treated differently so that they can all experience the same outcome, then you side with the defendants. And if you think systemic discrimination isn't a thing, maybe this will change your mind: Imagine a building owner who hates people in wheelchairs, so they build their building with no ramps, only second floor entrances with stairs. After a while they sell the building and the new owners come in. They have nothing against wheelchairs, but their building is still inaccessible to wheelchairs. So the discrimination is gone, but the system that was in place in the past still affects the people in wheelchairs. The only way to fix this problem is it dedicate resources to building ramps, which means treating people in wheelchairs differently by spending extra resources to accommodate them. Do you think the folks in wheelchairs should be accommodated? [0] https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/infographics/visualizing-health-equity.html https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/infographics/v...

rjbwork 3y ago
Do you think the folks in wheelchairs should be accommodated? Yes. But I don't think you should be able to build an apartment building and then explicitly ban non wheelchair users. It's a two way street.
- esalman 3y ago
  The irony is lost on you.
  - rjbwork 3y ago
    Apparently. Can you elaborate?
    - 3y ago

deepfriedchokes 3y ago

If we target class instead of race we will likely end up helping the same people without violating any laws.