3 ms·

It might be worth reviewing whether you're qualified to pontificate on this; not all comments are "constructive": this one spreads misinformation. Please commen

It 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Yeah admittedly it wasn’t a great way to go about asking the question…especially the “obvious” part.
bombcar 3y ago
In California at least "political affiliation" is a protected class. In some cases.
AlotOfReading 3y ago
That'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 ago
I'm not. That's why I asked what employment lawyers have to say.

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 ago
It 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 ago
  Yeah admittedly it wasn’t a great way to go about asking the question…especially the “obvious” part.

bombcar 3y ago

In California at least "political affiliation" is a protected class. In some cases.

AlotOfReading 3y ago

That'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 ago

I'm not. That's why I asked what employment lawyers have to say.