3 ms·
I didn't say whether avoiding to interview older worker is discrimination or not. It's irrelevant. What I'm trying to call attention to is the likely actual (no
by ash 11y ago
I didn't say whether avoiding to interview older worker is discrimination or not. It's irrelevant. What I'm trying to call attention to is the likely actual (not intended, but actual) effect of age discrimination law. Also note, the earlier in the hiring process company avoids older people, the harder it is to prove that the law was broken.
- balls187 11y ago> What I'm trying to call attention to is the likely actual (not intended, but actual) effect of age discrimination law. If your logic holds, Google would actively not try to interview people at all, because Race, Origin, Gender, and Military Status are all protected classes with anti discrimination laws.
- ash 11y agoHow does this disprove what I'm trying to say?
- hn_ 11y agoEveryone is in a protected class. Everyone. Even white male Christan Americans. Sure they are less likely to be discriminated against but it surely can and does happen. And lawsuits can and have been filed. There was one the other day here on HN, a company was accused of favoring SE Asians over Americans. Also despite what crazy MRAs claim the courts have been working to correct gender imbalance that favor females. I can think of a couple off the top of my head - a case that involved male military spouses having to prove they were financially dependent on their spouse in order to receive military benefits and one that involved social security surviving widows getting survivors benefits but not widowers. Both were successfully argued and ruled unconstitutional. Besides your logic makes absolutely no sense - "I'm going to discriminate against a protected class to avoid lawsuits accusing me of discriminating against a protected class."