7 ms·

Not intending to detract from this article or the merits here. Congratulations to her for pushing forward. Can a man sue on similar grounds? I have a friend wh

• zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Asking for legal advice on the internet always goes well
  • sva_ 3y ago
    OP isn't asking for legal advice but trying to start a discussion, I believe
    • threeseed 3y ago
      It's not really a solid base for a discussion though. We don't have any objective evidence e.g. when they say "equivalent work" on what basis is that being determined.
• todd3834 3y ago
  Maybe but I imagine his future at the company will be strained after this. Is he willing to do this on exit? Since there is no financial issue I’m not sure what he would win. Not a lawyer… etc…
  • t-writescode 3y ago
    Also not a lawyer. If they do “strain his future”, wouldn’t that be retaliation for a complaint, and wouldn’t that then be illegal? Again, not a lawyer.
    • VanTheBrand 3y ago
      Yes
    • soup10 3y ago
      if someone files litigation, that's obviously gonna sour the relationship, even if "retaliation" is legal or not
      • anon373839 3y ago
        Suing while continuing to work is an absolute baller move, but it has to be carefully coordinated. When done well, it puts the company in a terrible predicament, and they will be eager to settle in most cases. And no, you definitely won’t have a future there.
    • IshKebab 3y ago
      It's probably even harder to prove that sort of retaliation than that he has been the victim of sexism.
• liquidpele 3y ago
  Of course he can sue, whether he has evidence enough to make it worth it he should ask a lawyer.
• stuckkeys 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 3y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. Actually your account has been doing so much of this that it's well over the line where we'd ban it, but want to at least give you a heads-up first. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
    • stuckkeys 3y ago
      I was being sarcastic. Not a lawyer btw. I tried to delete my comment, but I could not. Maybe it has been deleted and only I can see it.
      • lightbritefight 3y ago
        That deeply sexist comment about how he would need to get "big tits and look like an instagram model?" Nope, still very visible to the world.
        • stuckkeys 3y ago
          It is not letting me delete it lol. Sorry world.
          • dang 3y ago
            The comment is [dead], which means only users with 'showdead' turned on in their profile can see it. That's a tiny minority of readers.
        • dang 3y ago
          Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• yieldcrv 3y ago
  You just have to convince a jury, which I would not consider gender impartial. Interestingly, she brought this case under a New York law. It didn’t use a state labor commission or the federal EOCC so the answer is probably, but its a much greater gamble, as the commissions use public funding to strong arm companies to settle, while providing a path for representation in the courts alongside your own counsel It takes a big place of privilege to circumvent that and use a different state law and go straight to court Whereas the labor commissions would absolutely take your case and try to get you compensated
• SoftTalker 3y ago
  Honestly, no. Legally, maybe but it won't go anywhere and he'll just come off looking like a crybaby.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • raincole 3y ago
    The interesting part is when a woman does the exact same thing, she will be considered strong, brave and independent. Actually, it's right! Speaking up against inequality is strong and brave. We really need to see men who do that the same way, instead of "what a crybaby".
• ugh123 3y ago
  What you're describing doesn't sound like a "pay equity" issue since he's getting equal pay and he's doing equivalent work. If he was paid less for equivalent work then he'd have a stronger case. He'd have to claim the lesser title is damaging to his career prospects.
  • Aeolun 3y ago
    So the reverse is true? Because the guy with the lesser title is getting paid as much as his female counterparts with a higher one?
    • connicpu 3y ago
      If they're doing equivalent work for equivalent pay I don't think anyone involved has much of a chance for any legal claims, regardless of titles. The value of a title is far too subjective.
      • sokoloff 3y ago
        It does seem to create a pay inequity for the job at the lower level whereby the man in this story is being paid more than the typical woman who is at that same job level as him.
        • dcow 3y ago
          Adjacent bands overlap all the time.
• cratermoon 3y ago
  I would suggest looking first at the legal definition of "protected group" as well as "historically underrepresented/marginalized groups". If your friend still believes he has a case, then consult a lawyer. Good luck going up against a Fortune 500 if he does move forward.
  • jetrink 3y ago
    In the United States, the law says that employers can't discriminate against any individual on the basis of sex. It doesn't matter what the sex of the person is. 1. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964 https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-196...
• endisneigh 3y ago
  Isn’t your situation literally evidence of the woman being discriminated against here? The woman in your situation with the greater title is being paid no more than your friend with a lower one, or women with the same title are being underpaid. If and when the man is promoted to the same title as the woman with the greater one they will be paid more than the woman despite doing “equivalent work”. Unless your friend is required to do the work above their title it seems like a non issue and literally your friend is the one with the advantage…
  • Kamq 3y ago
    > Unless your friend is required to do the work above their title This is what the OP is implying is happening (I'm not going to rule on fact). Or at the very least, the person is voluntarily doing work above their title.
    • endisneigh 3y ago
      In either case the friend, the man, still is in the superior position. In the first case they are paid the same as someone with a higher title, and when promoted inevitably they will be paid more than someone with the same title. In the second case they are paid more than people with their same title who may be performing all of the duties required, and this is not to say that there are not others also performing equivalently who did not received this equivalent wage. This sort of situation is exactly why people need to talk to their manager, to avoid over performing and being resentful about it. The fact the person was able to get a raise without a promotion is literally the best case scenario. If their work is actually the same they’ll be promoted and get another raise, resulting in higher pay than those with the same title…
      • Kamq 3y ago
        > In the first case they are paid the same as someone with a higher title, and when promoted inevitably they will be paid more than someone with the same title. You act like promotions are automatic, but you're ignoring case where they never get promoted, and can't leverage their resume nearly as effectively because of the lower title. In which case, all they got was a temporary pay bump in exchange for doing extra work, but didn't get any credit for that work.
• bakugo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • scaredginger 3y ago
    [citation needed]
  • throw18376 3y ago
    this is false, at least as a matter of what the law actually says. discrimination against men is definitely not legal. with most protected characteristics, discrimination is banned even against the dominant or historically favored group (e.g. it is also illegal to discriminate against white people, against Christians, etc.) exceptions are age (it is legal to discriminate against younger people) and disability (it is legal to discriminate against people who don't have disabilities).
    • yreg 3y ago
      You should add a jurisdiction because I doubt these rules are worldwide.
• DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
  In a general sense yes. For example, if a man was unjustly denied a promotion and some random unqualified woman got the job instead (gender swapped version of the article) they might have a case. In your friends case...I dunno. Seems like if they're being paid the same it's hard to argue discrimination.
• justin66 3y ago
  > Does he have grounds to sue? I imagine the women who were promoted above him, but are nevertheless earning the same amount of money as someone below them on the org chart (and presumably, less than some of their peers) might have a more compelling case in court. An "I'm being overpaid for my job title" situation is going to require a pretty nuanced approach when it comes to showing damages, compared to a lot of other job discrimination lawsuits, I would think. (this seems like something where a lawyer would say "you want to do what?")
  • aksss 3y ago
    Titles have value. Two people with same pay, their rank in the company and relative progression in their career is determined by title. Arguably titles can even trump pay. Would you take the title of CxO even if we leave your total comp the same? Many people would say yes, if only to get it on the resume, spend a couple years with it, and jump laterally to shore up the comp aspect. I use title CxO as extreme example but same behavior applies to any senior leadership position at least.
  • anon373839 3y ago
    There could be a discrimination claim, because being denied a promotion is an adverse employment action irrespective of pay. Damages can be shown from the loss of career opportunities that a fancier title would carry. That can be established with different types of evidence, one being expert testimony. The difficulty with this sort of case is showing causation, because the company will always produce some alternate reasons other than gender to justify its decision. It’s a surmountable hurdle, but not every case is strong enough to even make it to a jury. Of course, on a practical level, you have all of the politics surrounding this. Depending on your judge and jury pool, you may or may not have a fighting chance.
    • justin66 3y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, and I'm aware that the law might be infinitely more ridiculous than what I've seen as a mere observer working in business, but: > Damages can be shown from the loss of career opportunities that a fancier title would carry. The guy is going to sue his employer because, while he's arguably overpaid in the way that's easy to measure (pay for a given job title) he's arguably underpaid in the way that's difficult to quantify (was he provably more worthy of a promotion than the person who got it?). And not even he claims that he is not receiving equal pay for equal work? Honest question - has anyone (a person that can be named, not a message board hypothetical) ever won a lawsuit like that? Did the victory involve anything more than a court ordering that they be awarded a "fancier title?"
• kyleyeats 3y ago
  It's okay to be racist and sexist as long as it's in the "right" direction. This is standard-issue morality in California and it applies to absolutely everything including hiring and the courts.
  • gremlinunderway 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • gustavus 3y ago
      That's funny I always thought that prejudice and discrimination was something someone could be regardless of who you are. That is interesting to learn that as long as you are part of certain groups it is impossible for one to be racist, sexist, or homophobic. I love this morality, next thing you'll tell me it is not wrong for one group of people to attempt to perform ethnic cleansing because they were "disadvantaged" so it's okay. I mean if that is the price we have to pay to keep Nazis out of society though clearly it is worth it. I mean how horrible would it be if we had students at prominent ivy League universities chanting things like. "There is only one solution infantada revolution." But I am sure this relative standards of ethic and morality will lead us to a new golden age and not just engender resentment and divide.
      • beachy 3y ago
        Never go full Godwin.
      • moron4hire 3y ago
        I'm not going to try to wade into this discussion and argue one way or another (mostly because I'm too tired to put that kind of effort in), but I do want to point out a case of varying word usage that I think often muddies the waters in these kinds of situations. It's a misclassification of things. Prejudice is a feeling against a group. Racism/Sexism/etc., is an action against individuals based on prejudice. There is an old saying, "racism = prejudice + power". Basically, people can be prejudiced all day long, but if they lack the power structure to be able to do anything about it, then they can't be whatever-ist. It's also where the notion of "systemic racism" comes from. If a law or policy disproportionately impacts a certain group of people, that is prima facia a power structure that enforces a prejudice. In a way, it's almost like a kind of mathematics. There are operands and operators. Depending on the operands, the operations are one-way. Like the issues of zero getting anywhere near division. In the pursuit of a mathematics that is consistent, we discard a mathematics that is complete. This distinction is important because people educated in traditionally liberal institutions have this taught to them, as well as what "counts" as power structures capable of weaponizing prejudice to become an -ism. Just as we accept in STEM fields that "division by 0 is an undefined operation", people in social justice fields accept "traditionally underrepresented groups can't be -ist". Kind of like how lawyers have their own language for things like "reasonable" and all kinds of Latin phrases that don't follow or completely befuddle the intuitive understanding that lay-people have. For example, you'll see people talk about how certain standup comics appear to "get away" with saying things that would cause screaming fits if a person of a different background said similar things. E.g., an African American comic making comments about white people vs. a white comic making comments about African Americans. You're likely to hear apologia like, "it's impossible for a black person to be racist". What they mean is that black people historically lack the power structure to be able to activate prejudice against white people. In other words, Kevin Hart's prejudicial comments about white people aren't "racist comments" because it's unlikely to have any major impact on how white people are perceived or treated. Whereas Michael Richards using the N-word reinforces and normalizes existing systemic problems in American culture. Again, I'm not here to argue that prejudice from one group is OK as long as that group has been historically (and let's be honest, contemporaneously) mistreated. But if you want to understand how people can make such confusing statements as "black people can't be racist" or "women can't be sexist", this is the worldview under which they are operating. NB: I'm a big believer in Sun Tzu's exhortation to "know your enemy and know yourself". To be clear, the enemy here is "people who overly-parse words to post hoc rationalize saying mean things about other people."
• jrflowers 3y ago
  > Does he have grounds to sue? This is a good question because “sue” and “convince a jury” are used interchangeably. It is a good thought experiment because if we treat the act of filing a lawsuit and the act of winning one as the same thing, this does make the outcome of this trial proof positive of reverse sexism. Some kooks might say “in America you can sue anyone for anything and your chance of winning depends on myriad factors” but that is just a distraction. One woman won one case, so it stands to reason that we must ask if the system is set up so no man can win any case.
• seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  I’m pretty sure a guy has won a case based on gender discrimination before, but it doesn’t happen as often as the other way around. It would be a really awkward case to push in any case, which is probably why it doesn’t happen often?
• clnq 3y ago
  Ask a lawyer and your friend. Grounds to sue mean at least wanting to sue, feeling that an injustice was made, having a legal avenue of suing, and predicting good probability of a favorable outcome. Whether it’s likely he would get a favorable outcome depends on the legal system as well as its components. In case law countries, this might be a strong precedent-setting lawsuit, where the defendant will have an advantage due to the very lack of precedent. In civil law countries, it might be easier as no precedent is needed and discrimination would almost definitely not involve a jury. So if the laws are unbiased, a man and a woman would be treated exactly the same in that case.
• Rebelgecko 3y ago
  Full disclosure, work for Alphabet but my opinions are my own etc etc In 2019 Google found that some male SWEs were being underpaid and issued extra raises that IIRC came out to around $10m/year
• mellosouls 3y ago
  Ask James Damore.