5 ms·
What do employment lawyers have to say about this? Seems like a pretty obvious discrimination lawsuit.
by ehutch79 3y ago
What do employment lawyers have to say about this? Seems like a pretty obvious discrimination lawsuit.
- ActionHank 3y agoAre there laws governing discrimination based on location?
- kube-system 3y agoThere are, but none that would apply here that I'm aware of.
- reaperman 3y agoIt might be worth reviewing whether you're qualified to pontificate on this; not all comments are "constructive": this one spreads misinformation. Please comment on things where you have a bare minimum of expertise. Charges of discrimination by employers can only be for the enumerated reasons of: > "because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information."[0] Things like whether you are working remote or in-office, your political beliefs/affiliation, personality, where you choose to live, what color you died your hair, whether you re-heat salmon in the office microwave...these are generally not covered by charges of "discrimination" in the USA. 0: https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination
- bandyaboot 3y ago> It might be worth reviewing whether you're qualified to pontificate on this; not all comments are "constructive": this one spreads misinformation. I think this is a pretty harsh framing. They directly ask for input from someone with expertise (indirectly making it known that their existing belief is not backed by relevant expertise). Then they state what their existing belief is. It reads to me like an invitation for someone to correct their existing belief.
- reaperman 3y agoIt was overly harsh. I'd apologize for that. But I'd have a less-strong reaction if they said "What do employment lawyers have to say about this? Could it be a discrimination lawsuit?" Instead, they said: > "Seems like a pretty obvious discrimination lawsuit." Which is the difference between lazy inquiry and spreading misinformation.
- bandyaboot 3y agoYeah admittedly it wasn’t a great way to go about asking the question…especially the “obvious” part.
- bombcar 3y agoIn California at least "political affiliation" is a protected class. In some cases.
- AlotOfReading 3y agoThat's an unnecessarily aggressive response. Also, "disparate impact".
- kube-system 3y ago> Charges of discrimination by employers can only be for the enumerated reasons of That is also not true, because many locales in the US have requirements that reach beyond the minimums required by federal law.
- ehutch79 3y agoI'm not. That's why I asked what employment lawyers have to say.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- semanticist 3y agoDiscrimination per se is never illegal, otherwise you couldn't use things like education, experience, or skill level to decide who to hire/promote. It's discrimination against a protected class which is (often/normally, depending on where you live) illegal. While there are protected classes that benefit from flexible working locations (people with some disabilities, for example), working from home in and of itself isn't a protected class, so there's no real chance for a lawsuit on that grounds.
- fred_is_fred 3y agoAnyone who assumes there's some magic US labor law to protect them from something they deem unfair doesn't have enough experience with US labor law.
- paxys 3y agoHow is it discrimination?
- croc_socks 3y agoAre remote worker's a protected class?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- achanda358 3y agoNo, but there might still be basis for a lawsuit. For example, if a worker can prove that they need to be remote due to a medical condition, that might make this discrimination on that medical condition.
- humansareok1 3y agoYour mistake was assuming US workers have any protections lol