Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 163 posts

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#11

Post by dwighttk »

Kerrick wrote: post #6

> The company’s lawyers at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton also argued that DiBenedetto could not simultaneously assert a claim of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination of Employment Act because both laws require proof that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the particular version of discrimination each law prohibits. Because DiBenedetto all…

I mean that is just how lawyers work. Getting off on a technicality is as good as finding the truth. Former is even better if your client is guilty.

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#12

Post by planckscnst »

Kerrick wrote: post #6

> The company’s lawyers at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton also argued that DiBenedetto could not simultaneously assert a claim of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination of Employment Act because both laws require proof that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the particular version of discrimination each law prohibits. Because DiBenedetto all…

This kind of situation is what led to Kimberlé Crenshaw coining the term "intersectionality" - to describe effects such as this.

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#13

Post by MontyCarloHall »

>The complaint recounts an incident, for instance, about Johnson telling DiBenedetto in 2020 that he expected to retire in a couple of years. DiBenedetto said he was interested in applying for his boss’ job. Johnson allegedly noted DiBenedetto’s short "runway." According to DiBenedetto, the boss said, “In these roles, you know, you've got to be able to adapt and move, and I'm not saying you can't, but a 58-year-old white guy, I don't know if that's going to happen.”

Oof. Seems like an open and shut case if that last quote (or others of its ilk) can be proven to have been said.

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#14

Post by [deleted] »

Kerrick wrote: post #6

> The company’s lawyers at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton also argued that DiBenedetto could not simultaneously assert a claim of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination of Employment Act because both laws require proof that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the particular version of discrimination each law prohibits. Because DiBenedetto all…

[deleted]

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#16

Post by imgabe »

Kerrick wrote: post #6

> The company’s lawyers at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton also argued that DiBenedetto could not simultaneously assert a claim of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination of Employment Act because both laws require proof that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the particular version of discrimination each law prohibits. Because DiBenedetto all…

Not that it’s legal, but that the way the laws are written precludes claiming both at the same time.

> both laws require proof that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the particular version of discrimination each law prohibits

So the racial discrimination requires proof that you would not have been injured except for the racial discrimination. But if there is age discrimination, then you would still have been injured anyway, so the racial discrimination doesn’t apply. And vice versa.

I hope the judge won’t let it fly, but it’s certainly a logical inconsistency in the way the laws were written.

I think the intent is to prevent people from claiming discrimination when there were other reasons, like being unqualified, that would have prevented them from getting the job or whatnot.

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#17

Post by striking »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #5

> You can call it the paradox of the old white guy: Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. These laws are still protecting the equal treatment, since the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing is explicitly about giving unequal (more favorable) treatment to people who aren't…

> the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing is explicitly about giving unequal (more favorable) treatment to people who aren't white/male/cis

It's too bad you see it that way when in a lot of cases it's explicitly about giving equal consideration to everyone rather than giving anyone more favorable treatment. Not every case, obviously, but that shouldn't invalidate attempting to level the playing field.

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#18

Post by colordrops »

collegeburner wrote: post #4

About damn time. The fact that people can talk casually about "old white men" or whatever shows that they are being racist, sexist and agephobic. Maybe there isn't the same historical power imbalance but factoring that kind of thing into hiring or firing decisions is still a deontological wrong. I hope he wins and I hope that everybody who has been discriminated out of a job because they are white/black/man/woman/nb/…

Sure. The biggest flaw in all this thinking is that an individual should suffer because an arbitrary grouping they're placed in historically has been abusive or advantaged, even if the individual is neither. And the groupings are usually flawed. For instance I'm an Arab, and have been discriminated against and even beaten for it. My ancestors are not Yale alumni ex-slave owner families, and I've never gotten a job for being "white". Yet I'm classified as "white", which is absurd and shows that racial groups are absurd, and not even a scientifically acknowledged phenomenon, but just a social construct [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#19

Post by derevaunseraun »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #13

>The complaint recounts an incident, for instance, about Johnson telling DiBenedetto in 2020 that he expected to retire in a couple of years. DiBenedetto said he was interested in applying for his boss’ job. Johnson allegedly noted DiBenedetto’s short "runway." According to DiBenedetto, the boss said, “In these roles, you know, you've got to be able to adapt and move, and I'm not saying you can't, but a 58-year-old w…

> Oof. Seems like an open and shut case if that last quote (or others of its ilk) can be proven to have been said.

If he was in a one party consent state for audio recording, he should've recorded it.

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#20

Post by adra »

Not to make light of the possibly real allegations, but I'd argue the most likely outcome has to do with compensation and productivity than "discrimination" against a class. The target was probably the least productive employees, aka the ones who make the most and seemingly produce the least amount of value per their compensation.

Fleets of middle class people lost their jobs in the decades predating this for the same reasons, and I bet the majority of the high earning staff are probably more likely to have been white men as well (because they were likely the most hired demography hired into those roles made redundant).

To quote my most beloved demotivator, "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawn-mower."

Post reply on HN