3 ms·
This doesn't really explain > otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.
by strangecasts 11y ago
This doesn't really explain
> otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.
- Nadya 11y agoYou either have a complaint for systematically being ignored or you don't. There isn't a middle ground. It's black and white: you were or you weren't. There are methods of getting these things investigated and handled [0]. In some cases, it is very easy to tell when you are being discriminated against [1]. If it cannot be proved - and investigations prove otherwise - that discrimination did not take place, the feeling of being discriminated against does not mean discrimination took place. Otherwise someone could pull the race/gender card each and every time they weren't hired, regardless if the reason was they were underqualified/not the right fit/blah blah blah. [0] http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/howtofile.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/howtofile.cfm [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by-men-denied-jobs.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by...
- strangecasts 11y agoThe systematically of _pius' post is almost certainly used in the sense of "resulting from structural discrimination", which is a much larger and insidious beast because there's absolutely ingrained biases and entrenched policies that end up selecting away minorities in ways that can't be effectively shown in court.