Of course he doesn't want to continue in the environment, but he does want monetary compensation for missing out on the hypothetical job that was just like goog

Of course he doesn't want to continue in the environment, but he does want monetary compensation for missing out on the hypothetical job that was just like google only without the "old fuddy-duddy" comments. The point of the laws as they stand is that companies must foster work environments accepting of people without regard to age race etc. for fear of civil liability if they don't, just like making safe baby toys and proper meat processing. The disadvantage is that it discourages companies from hiring people in the selected groups in the first place as they have a tendency to sue you on the way out; we just saw an article about firing someone in France, think that only for certain groups (of course you can get sued for that too, but discriminatory hiring practices are much harder to prove to a jury than wrongful termination) It's interesting which transactions get this treatment; do you get to sue for being denied service at a business because of age, sex, race? do you get to sue the town for not patronizing your business because you are age, sex, race? What about suing investors for the cost of equity capital being too high for companies with CEOs of color? This seems to be an issue more of what's practical to regulate than some overriding moral principle.