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

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 know that you were refused a job. You don't know that it's because you are mentally ill. 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".