7 ms·

You know, even if you hired a protected class because of DEI fashion, that doesn't mean you can fire them just because the fashion has changed. The laws protec

You know, even if you hired a protected class because of DEI fashion, that doesn't mean you can fire them just because the fashion has changed. The laws protecting them are still there, and I would think announcing "we're getting rid of DEI hires" would be giving a labor lawyer a discrimination case on a plate.

mikeyouse 1y ago
I think it's more they're gutting the DEI programs rather than the hires - many large companies have some variant of "reach out and hold campus events at HBCUs" or "sponsor a booth at a Girls who Code conference" which are suddenly mortal sins in the eyes of the people doling out Federal procurement contracts.
sidewndr46 1y ago
This is sort of like saying "IBM can't create a program designed to specifically prefer H-1Bs". They can't. They have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in associated fees due to those illegal acts. They've also had to promise not do it again. Which they have. They paid those fines, again when caught doing the thing they can't do because it's illegal.
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
But the case won't get heard because the entire NLRB is frozen up. The dept of justice also won't hear these cases. So it doesn't even matter how blatant the violation is if there is no enforcement.
rdtsc 1y ago
They would just say you’re reassigned to the Alaska office. You’re expected to work there 3 days a week starting October or something. See, they didn’t fire them! They just resigned under their own accord. /s
- bufferoverflow 1y ago
  No, that would be constructive dismissal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    > The burden of proof in constructive dismissal cases lies with the employee. The only practical way is if somehow an executive breaks ranks and exposes some list or email or private conversation where he they were planning this. A harder way is some coordinating action from employees. All get together to figure out the patterns.
    - dghlsakjg 1y ago
      It depends on the state, but you don’t have to prove intent, you have to prove that the conditions of your job changed enough that it is an unreasonable burden. If they transfer you to a location that requires an additional hour of commuting, you just have to prove that the commute takes an extra hour.
      - rdtsc 1y ago
        > If they transfer you to a location that requires an additional hour of commuting, you just have to prove that the commute takes an extra hour. Oh that’s easy to prove. But then what? Does your employment contract prohibit commutes.
        dghlsakjg 1y ago
        No. The government authority in charge of employment decides whether that change is enough of a change of the original job that it constitutes constructive dismissal. If so, you can quit your job and are eligible for unemployment and any other legal benefits of having been fired without cause, and a claim is put against the employers account in the unemployment system.
        1y ago
nikanj 1y ago
The laws are still there, but who enforces the laws at this point?
__turbobrew__ 1y ago
It most likely means the team in charge of implementing DEI policies was canned. Some places have tens of people whose job it is to solely work on DEI policies.
BurningFrog 1y ago
Despite the quotes IBM has not announced "we're getting rid of DEI hires". Reading the article will give you a fuller understanding of the announcement.

mikeyouse 1y ago

I think it's more they're gutting the DEI programs rather than the hires - many large companies have some variant of "reach out and hold campus events at HBCUs" or "sponsor a booth at a Girls who Code conference" which are suddenly mortal sins in the eyes of the people doling out Federal procurement contracts.

sidewndr46 1y ago

This is sort of like saying "IBM can't create a program designed to specifically prefer H-1Bs". They can't. They have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in associated fees due to those illegal acts. They've also had to promise not do it again. Which they have. They paid those fines, again when caught doing the thing they can't do because it's illegal.

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago

But the case won't get heard because the entire NLRB is frozen up. The dept of justice also won't hear these cases. So it doesn't even matter how blatant the violation is if there is no enforcement.

rdtsc 1y ago

They would just say you’re reassigned to the Alaska office. You’re expected to work there 3 days a week starting October or something. See, they didn’t fire them! They just resigned under their own accord. /s

bufferoverflow 1y ago
No, that would be constructive dismissal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
- rdtsc 1y ago
  > The burden of proof in constructive dismissal cases lies with the employee. The only practical way is if somehow an executive breaks ranks and exposes some list or email or private conversation where he they were planning this. A harder way is some coordinating action from employees. All get together to figure out the patterns.
  - dghlsakjg 1y ago
    It depends on the state, but you don’t have to prove intent, you have to prove that the conditions of your job changed enough that it is an unreasonable burden. If they transfer you to a location that requires an additional hour of commuting, you just have to prove that the commute takes an extra hour.
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      > If they transfer you to a location that requires an additional hour of commuting, you just have to prove that the commute takes an extra hour. Oh that’s easy to prove. But then what? Does your employment contract prohibit commutes.
      - dghlsakjg 1y ago
        No. The government authority in charge of employment decides whether that change is enough of a change of the original job that it constitutes constructive dismissal. If so, you can quit your job and are eligible for unemployment and any other legal benefits of having been fired without cause, and a claim is put against the employers account in the unemployment system.
        1y ago

nikanj 1y ago

The laws are still there, but who enforces the laws at this point?

__turbobrew__ 1y ago

It most likely means the team in charge of implementing DEI policies was canned. Some places have tens of people whose job it is to solely work on DEI policies.

BurningFrog 1y ago

Despite the quotes IBM has not announced "we're getting rid of DEI hires". Reading the article will give you a fuller understanding of the announcement.