5 ms·

>The American workers say that India’s Tata Consultancy Services illegally discriminated against them based on their race and age, firing them Question to the

>The American workers say that India’s Tata Consultancy Services illegally discriminated against them based on their race and age, firing them Question to the Americans: if in the US you don't need a reason to fire someone, how can you prove the company was discriminating you when they fired you if they didn't give a reason.

mjh2539 3y ago
Because there usually is in fact a reason and just because they did not disclose it to you does not mean the reason does not exist and it does not mean that it won't/can't be found via subpoena/deposition.
- Rinzler89 3y ago
  Ok, but if there's no reason? Or what do you do when the reason is something somewhat objective like "performance" because you didn't meet your deadlines or something. Can you claim discrimination then? Otherwise what's stopping everyone from claiming discrimination every time they get laid off?
  - lolinder 3y ago
    > Ok, but what do you do when the reason is something somewhat objective like "performance" because you didn't meet your deadlines or something. Can you claim discrimination then? Usually if that's the reason the company will go to great pains to document it and fire you properly, for cause. This is where PIPs (performance improvement plans) come in—they document the specific areas where performance is lacking, set specific targets for improvement, show that those targets were not met in the time allotted, and then fire you. If a company doesn't do that then yeah, they're leaving themselves open to a discrimination suit. It doesn't usually happen because lawsuits are expensive and unemployed people tend to not have the resources to fight back, but larger companies will usually take pains to be sure they're covered.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    > Ok, but if there's no reason? If there is no reason, why were you fired? You can easily google/ask chatgpt the answer to your questions - the answer is that some companies are nowadays very risk averse in laying people off precisely because they are afraid of discrimination lawsuits, which is why they generally have very solid documentation of performance problems (hence the reason for the modern Performance Improvement Plan as a papertrail)
    - Rinzler89 3y ago
      >If there is no reason, why were you fired? Behause they can? To cover their ass? I duuno. I'm asking since I live in an EU country where you can get laid off for no reason and employers usually provide no exact reason in writing precisely to potentially avoid getting sued. They just terminate your contract and let you know they terminate your contract by giving you your notice and that's that, you're gone in 30-90 days, no need to provide an explanation as to why they decided to terminate you since they're not required by law. So I'm asking to know how it's like in the US if it's like here. If employers aren't required by law to provide termination reason, why would they?
      - tpmoney 3y ago
        The reason I was always told was that terminating an employee for cause is the only way not to take a hit to your unemployment insurance if they file for unemployment. So if they have any "good" reason for firing you, it's in their best interests to provide that reason.
      - gambiting 3y ago
        >>I'm asking since I live in an EU country where you can get laid off for no reason and employers usually provide no exact reason in writing precisely to potentially avoid getting sued. What EU country is that?
        Rinzler89 3y ago
        >What EU country is that? Austria.
  - otoburb 3y ago
    >>Otherwise what's stopping everyone from claiming discrimination every time they get laid off? You can claim discrimination, but then you'll need somebody (usually an attorney you hire) to file a lawsuit against the company. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you'll also need to cite a specific type of discrimination for your case to have standing.
georgeplusplus 3y ago
They could have friends on the inside that told them they were replaced by h1b holders to tip them off
idiotsecant 3y ago
Its difficult, but that's why discovery exists.
ryandrake 3y ago
From the article: > In their complaints, the former employees cite comments that TCS’s global human resources head Milind Lakkad made in an interview with Indian media last year. He said TCS is trying to reduce the number of Americans it employs in the U.S. and would like to provide more opportunities to Indians there, according to the report. > One former worker said in a complaint that TCS human-resources staff told employees in an all-hands meeting that the company planned to use money saved by closing down a unit that employed many of the American workers to provide jobs to more Indian nationals in the U.S.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
Well first of all, for protected groups, you don't need to prove the reason, you need to prove "disparate impact". Don't need intent. And even when you need intent, these people are like people who do insider trading. They tend to leave a trail. They think they're smart. Then they talk in detail about the crimes they are doing in logged chat rooms. It's hilarious.
bparsons 3y ago
Precisely. This is not a problem with Tata. It is a problem with the extremely backward labour laws in the United States.
pdonis 3y ago
> in the US you don't need a reason to fire someone That's not quite what "at will employment" in the US actually means. What it means is that an employer can fire you at any time for any reason that isn't an unlawful reason. It doesn't mean the employer doesn't have to give a reason at all, or that the employer can simply refuse to give a reason if questioned, particularly if there is an allegation that the firing was for an unlawful reason.
- Rinzler89 3y ago
  Ok so it's not really at will. There's still laws and regulations around firings.
  - snapetom 3y ago
    Correct. "At will" isn't quite the dystopian corporate nightmare some make it out to be. You can't just make up a reason. It has to be valid, and even if it is, it will be a headache for the legal department if there is even a hint that the person was targeted for being in a protected class. If it's proven the company fabricated the reason, well, you might as well name the company after person at that point. That's why companies still go through an enormous amount of procedural and documentation hoops before they fire someone, including PIPs.
    - D13Fd 3y ago
      > It has to be valid It doesn’t have to be valid. You can fire someone because you don’t like them, or for no reason at all. You just can’t fire them for a prohibited reason, such as race, age over 40, sex, disability etc. Needing a reason is more of a practical problem - every person is a member of at least two protected classes (everyone has a race and sex). If you have no reason for firing a person, it’s often pretty easy for them to argue it was really based on a protected characteristic.
      - snapetom 3y ago
        No, there has to be a reason to determine unemployment benefit eligibility. No smart company will ever put down "don't like them" or something more PC like, "culture misalignment." That's an invitation for legal issues. They're going to tie it back to performance as much as they can, and that takes time and effort.
ja27 3y ago
I always called it "being Tata'ed". I know multiple people that have had to train their direct replacement at TCS. The trick is, the companies subcontract whole functions to Tata who are then free to hire H1Bs that then aren't "direct replacements" for the former employee.

mjh2539 3y ago

Because there usually is in fact a reason and just because they did not disclose it to you does not mean the reason does not exist and it does not mean that it won't/can't be found via subpoena/deposition.

Rinzler89 3y ago
Ok, but if there's no reason? Or what do you do when the reason is something somewhat objective like "performance" because you didn't meet your deadlines or something. Can you claim discrimination then? Otherwise what's stopping everyone from claiming discrimination every time they get laid off?
- lolinder 3y ago
  > Ok, but what do you do when the reason is something somewhat objective like "performance" because you didn't meet your deadlines or something. Can you claim discrimination then? Usually if that's the reason the company will go to great pains to document it and fire you properly, for cause. This is where PIPs (performance improvement plans) come in—they document the specific areas where performance is lacking, set specific targets for improvement, show that those targets were not met in the time allotted, and then fire you. If a company doesn't do that then yeah, they're leaving themselves open to a discrimination suit. It doesn't usually happen because lawsuits are expensive and unemployed people tend to not have the resources to fight back, but larger companies will usually take pains to be sure they're covered.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  > Ok, but if there's no reason? If there is no reason, why were you fired? You can easily google/ask chatgpt the answer to your questions - the answer is that some companies are nowadays very risk averse in laying people off precisely because they are afraid of discrimination lawsuits, which is why they generally have very solid documentation of performance problems (hence the reason for the modern Performance Improvement Plan as a papertrail)
  - Rinzler89 3y ago
    >If there is no reason, why were you fired? Behause they can? To cover their ass? I duuno. I'm asking since I live in an EU country where you can get laid off for no reason and employers usually provide no exact reason in writing precisely to potentially avoid getting sued. They just terminate your contract and let you know they terminate your contract by giving you your notice and that's that, you're gone in 30-90 days, no need to provide an explanation as to why they decided to terminate you since they're not required by law. So I'm asking to know how it's like in the US if it's like here. If employers aren't required by law to provide termination reason, why would they?
    - tpmoney 3y ago
      The reason I was always told was that terminating an employee for cause is the only way not to take a hit to your unemployment insurance if they file for unemployment. So if they have any "good" reason for firing you, it's in their best interests to provide that reason.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      >>I'm asking since I live in an EU country where you can get laid off for no reason and employers usually provide no exact reason in writing precisely to potentially avoid getting sued. What EU country is that?
      - Rinzler89 3y ago
        >What EU country is that? Austria.
- otoburb 3y ago
  >>Otherwise what's stopping everyone from claiming discrimination every time they get laid off? You can claim discrimination, but then you'll need somebody (usually an attorney you hire) to file a lawsuit against the company. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you'll also need to cite a specific type of discrimination for your case to have standing.

georgeplusplus 3y ago

They could have friends on the inside that told them they were replaced by h1b holders to tip them off

idiotsecant 3y ago

Its difficult, but that's why discovery exists.

ryandrake 3y ago

From the article: > In their complaints, the former employees cite comments that TCS’s global human resources head Milind Lakkad made in an interview with Indian media last year. He said TCS is trying to reduce the number of Americans it employs in the U.S. and would like to provide more opportunities to Indians there, according to the report. > One former worker said in a complaint that TCS human-resources staff told employees in an all-hands meeting that the company planned to use money saved by closing down a unit that employed many of the American workers to provide jobs to more Indian nationals in the U.S.

rufus_foreman 3y ago

Well first of all, for protected groups, you don't need to prove the reason, you need to prove "disparate impact". Don't need intent. And even when you need intent, these people are like people who do insider trading. They tend to leave a trail. They think they're smart. Then they talk in detail about the crimes they are doing in logged chat rooms. It's hilarious.

bparsons 3y ago

Precisely. This is not a problem with Tata. It is a problem with the extremely backward labour laws in the United States.

pdonis 3y ago

> in the US you don't need a reason to fire someone That's not quite what "at will employment" in the US actually means. What it means is that an employer can fire you at any time for any reason that isn't an unlawful reason. It doesn't mean the employer doesn't have to give a reason at all, or that the employer can simply refuse to give a reason if questioned, particularly if there is an allegation that the firing was for an unlawful reason.

Rinzler89 3y ago
Ok so it's not really at will. There's still laws and regulations around firings.
- snapetom 3y ago
  Correct. "At will" isn't quite the dystopian corporate nightmare some make it out to be. You can't just make up a reason. It has to be valid, and even if it is, it will be a headache for the legal department if there is even a hint that the person was targeted for being in a protected class. If it's proven the company fabricated the reason, well, you might as well name the company after person at that point. That's why companies still go through an enormous amount of procedural and documentation hoops before they fire someone, including PIPs.
  - D13Fd 3y ago
    > It has to be valid It doesn’t have to be valid. You can fire someone because you don’t like them, or for no reason at all. You just can’t fire them for a prohibited reason, such as race, age over 40, sex, disability etc. Needing a reason is more of a practical problem - every person is a member of at least two protected classes (everyone has a race and sex). If you have no reason for firing a person, it’s often pretty easy for them to argue it was really based on a protected characteristic.
    - snapetom 3y ago
      No, there has to be a reason to determine unemployment benefit eligibility. No smart company will ever put down "don't like them" or something more PC like, "culture misalignment." That's an invitation for legal issues. They're going to tie it back to performance as much as they can, and that takes time and effort.

ja27 3y ago

I always called it "being Tata'ed". I know multiple people that have had to train their direct replacement at TCS. The trick is, the companies subcontract whole functions to Tata who are then free to hire H1Bs that then aren't "direct replacements" for the former employee.