4 ms·

Actually I think it's _you_ who don't understand how the legal system works. When one is the respondent in a civil lawsuit, one has to depose under oath, and o

Actually I think it's _you_ who don't understand how the legal system works. When one is the respondent in a civil lawsuit, one has to depose under oath, and one must supply what is requested in discovery. Yes, the respondent can ask that a judge quash a discovery subpeona, with the usual argument being that it's "just a fishing expedition". However, given Zuckerberg's adamant insistence that young people are smarter, and that no one at all should hire anyone over the age of thirty, it would not be hard to convince a judge to force Facebook to hand over all of its emails.

dalke 12y ago
Has Zuckerberg said anything about the matter in the last 5 years? If not, then you have no standing, and you have no legal power to compel FB to do anything for you. Legal precedent is against you, and I quoted a California Supreme Court case which went into the details for both California and US anti-discrimination law. Anti-discrimination laws give you 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place (or more depending on state or local laws, but not more than a year). You cannot sue over one even that happened that long ago. If so, then show me an example of how Zuckerberg continues to insist on that belief. I have found nothing beyond 2007. And kindly point out in the EEOC guidelines where there's a violation of the law.
- MichaelCrawford 12y ago
  I was refused a job at Amazon just two days ago, because I am mentally ill. My website makes that plainly apparent. That's called "Voluntary Self-Identification" in the Americans with Disabilities Act. I am dead certain that I am a far, far better coder than most of those who are already employed by Amazon. While yes, Zuckerberg said that in 2007 I don't see any evidence that he's changed his attitude. I never said that I myself ever applied to work at Facebook - and I never will. If I already know I won't like my place of work, I won't even apply. However, I'm not the only fifty year-old coder who's looking for a job. All that the UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - not the applicant - would have to prove is that just one facebook employee turned down an applicant because he was forty or more years old. Now are you going to tell me that that doesn't happen at facebook anymore?
  - dalke 12y ago
    Under the 'stray remarks' doctrine, a single remark made many years ago is not evidence that there is a discriminatory practice now. He doesn't have to change his mind. The EEOC doesn't care one whit about what people believe. It only judges actions. You need more evidence than simply that you weren't hired, and a stray remark from 2007, to justify an EEOC lawsuit. Had you read Reid v. Google you would see how hard it is to make the case based on the paltry evidence you have. You don't even know if the person who got the job is mentally ill. I never said you applied to work at Facebook. All of this assumed the antecedent to your proposition "All I would have to do is to apply to Facebook and I'd have a good case".
    - MichaelCrawford 12y ago
      Yes I know. That's what Discovery and Deposition for. The EEOC would go through the emails and other written documents, to see whether someone might have made discriminated in an illegal way, then they would depose them.
      - dalke 12y ago
        The FB/Yahoo/whoever lawyer would point out that there's no indication of any discrimination. Your only evidence is permissible under the stray remarks doctrine, promulgated by Justice O'Conner in the Supreme Court decision for Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989). You have no evidence of them doing anything illegal. Stray remarks "standing alone" are not sufficient prima facie evidence of age discrimination. Nor is not hiring someone who is a member of a protected class, without evidence that being in a protected class was a factor. You can't make up a random conjecture about them violating the law and do discovery. You have to have some evidence first. Show me a court case which says otherwise. If it were true then there should be thousands of court cases, or an EEOC guideline, which discussed it. I quote instead from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/briefs/fried.txt http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/briefs/fried.txt : However, “[s]tray remarks, even if they occurred as plaintiff claims, are not enough to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of proving pretext. Stray remarks alone do not create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment.” Bunk v. General Services Admin., 408 F. Supp. 2d 153, 158 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). See also Shapiro v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 561 F. Supp. 2d 413, 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“[t]he stray remarks of a decision-maker, without more, cannot prove a claim of employment discrimination”). In this case, the single, isolated mention of Fried’s age, the only such mention in the entire record, cannot, standing alone, create an issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. This is especially true given that State, by Fried’s own admission, qualified his remark by asking “what if you get hit by a bus.” Accordingly, unless other indicia of discrimination are properly presented, see [Shapiro, 561 F. Supp. 2d at 424], this comment alone is insufficient to sustain plaintiff’s burden of proving pretext as a matter of law. You have no other 'indicia of discrimination.' You have not demonstrated prima facie evidence. If what you were saying were true then why did Reid in Reid v. Google have to take the case to the California Supreme Court? Answer: because what you believe isn't actually true, and you don't understand the relevant case law.

dalke 12y ago

Has Zuckerberg said anything about the matter in the last 5 years? If not, then you have no standing, and you have no legal power to compel FB to do anything for you. Legal precedent is against you, and I quoted a California Supreme Court case which went into the details for both California and US anti-discrimination law. Anti-discrimination laws give you 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place (or more depending on state or local laws, but not more than a year). You cannot sue over one even that happened that long ago. If so, then show me an example of how Zuckerberg continues to insist on that belief. I have found nothing beyond 2007. And kindly point out in the EEOC guidelines where there's a violation of the law.

MichaelCrawford 12y ago
I was refused a job at Amazon just two days ago, because I am mentally ill. My website makes that plainly apparent. That's called "Voluntary Self-Identification" in the Americans with Disabilities Act. I am dead certain that I am a far, far better coder than most of those who are already employed by Amazon. While yes, Zuckerberg said that in 2007 I don't see any evidence that he's changed his attitude. I never said that I myself ever applied to work at Facebook - and I never will. If I already know I won't like my place of work, I won't even apply. However, I'm not the only fifty year-old coder who's looking for a job. All that the UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - not the applicant - would have to prove is that just one facebook employee turned down an applicant because he was forty or more years old. Now are you going to tell me that that doesn't happen at facebook anymore?
- dalke 12y ago
  Under the 'stray remarks' doctrine, a single remark made many years ago is not evidence that there is a discriminatory practice now. He doesn't have to change his mind. The EEOC doesn't care one whit about what people believe. It only judges actions. You need more evidence than simply that you weren't hired, and a stray remark from 2007, to justify an EEOC lawsuit. Had you read Reid v. Google you would see how hard it is to make the case based on the paltry evidence you have. You don't even know if the person who got the job is mentally ill. I never said you applied to work at Facebook. All of this assumed the antecedent to your proposition "All I would have to do is to apply to Facebook and I'd have a good case".
  - MichaelCrawford 12y ago
    Yes I know. That's what Discovery and Deposition for. The EEOC would go through the emails and other written documents, to see whether someone might have made discriminated in an illegal way, then they would depose them.
    - dalke 12y ago
      The FB/Yahoo/whoever lawyer would point out that there's no indication of any discrimination. Your only evidence is permissible under the stray remarks doctrine, promulgated by Justice O'Conner in the Supreme Court decision for Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989). You have no evidence of them doing anything illegal. Stray remarks "standing alone" are not sufficient prima facie evidence of age discrimination. Nor is not hiring someone who is a member of a protected class, without evidence that being in a protected class was a factor. You can't make up a random conjecture about them violating the law and do discovery. You have to have some evidence first. Show me a court case which says otherwise. If it were true then there should be thousands of court cases, or an EEOC guideline, which discussed it. I quote instead from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/briefs/fried.txt http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/briefs/fried.txt : However, “[s]tray remarks, even if they occurred as plaintiff claims, are not enough to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of proving pretext. Stray remarks alone do not create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment.” Bunk v. General Services Admin., 408 F. Supp. 2d 153, 158 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). See also Shapiro v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 561 F. Supp. 2d 413, 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“[t]he stray remarks of a decision-maker, without more, cannot prove a claim of employment discrimination”). In this case, the single, isolated mention of Fried’s age, the only such mention in the entire record, cannot, standing alone, create an issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. This is especially true given that State, by Fried’s own admission, qualified his remark by asking “what if you get hit by a bus.” Accordingly, unless other indicia of discrimination are properly presented, see [Shapiro, 561 F. Supp. 2d at 424], this comment alone is insufficient to sustain plaintiff’s burden of proving pretext as a matter of law. You have no other 'indicia of discrimination.' You have not demonstrated prima facie evidence. If what you were saying were true then why did Reid in Reid v. Google have to take the case to the California Supreme Court? Answer: because what you believe isn't actually true, and you don't understand the relevant case law.