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

41–50 of 163 posts

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

#41

Post by [deleted] »

slg wrote: post #25
yieldcrv wrote: post #3

> 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. To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. The mere fact that this is deemed as "novel" or newsworthy or intriguing is a poor reflection of society itself. Fortunately the…

>> 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. >To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this is less obvious when looking at how they define age discrimination. Specifically…

[deleted]

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

#42

Post by TeaDrunk »

slg wrote: post #25
yieldcrv wrote: post #3

> 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. To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. The mere fact that this is deemed as "novel" or newsworthy or intriguing is a poor reflection of society itself. Fortunately the…

>> 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. >To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this is less obvious when looking at how they define age discrimination. Specifically…

I think part of this is that, obviously it is totally fine to discriminate based on age. Children aren't allowed to work, vote, buy certain items, etc. You're also not allowed certain public offices if you're too young.

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

#43

Post by fallingknife »

themitigating wrote: post #32
RappingBoomer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

law school grad here--generic white males are not afforded the same protections as protected classes

Based on what?

Based on the rulings of liberal judges. The constitution and civil rights statutes are written in a race neutral way. The judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own.

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

#44

Post by JumpCrisscross »

fallingknife wrote: post #43
themitigating wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what?

Based on the rulings of liberal judges. The constitution and civil rights statutes are written in a race neutral way. The judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own.

> judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own

Do you have cases which survived appeal which sustain this? Judges' opinions tend to be way more sober than they're portrayed in the media, which mostly focusses on which side won.

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

#45

Post by prepend »

adra wrote: post #20

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 sam…

All 13 fired employees were over 50 and 9 were male and all were white.

The article doesn’t give the department demographics but it’s hard to believe that the entire department was over 50 and white.

It will be open and shut if the department has multiple age groups and races.

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

#46

Post by ikr678 »

preordained wrote: post #34
RappingBoomer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

law school grad here--generic white males are not afforded the same protections as protected classes

What the hell is a "generic" white male? Imagine if this was used for other groups...it's messed up

In this context, I read it as the poster emphasising the lack of any other legally protected class attribute (eg disabled).

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

#47

Post by bombcar »

chitowneats wrote: post #23
striking wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Where is this the case? I haven't witnessed it at any of my previous jobs, especially when I worked at a tech giant (Lyft). One of the higher ups in "DEI" at my local office said to me in an elevator, while it was just the two of us, "white guys are just the worst, aren't they?" Given the bizarre state of American racial politics, it was actually unclear if she was flexing on me, or if she genuinely expected me, a wh…

No doubt you were considered one of the good ones.

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

#48

Post by JumpCrisscross »

adra wrote: post #20

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 sam…

> most likely outcome has to do with compensation and productivity than "discrimination" against a class

If you’re overlooking someone because of their short “runway,” and then telling them that, you’re going to get sued. Because you are clearly, provably discriminating based on age.

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

#49

Post by I_dev_outdoors »

preordained wrote: post #34
RappingBoomer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

law school grad here--generic white males are not afforded the same protections as protected classes

What the hell is a "generic" white male? Imagine if this was used for other groups...it's messed up

Maybe they meant non-hispanic

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

#50

Post by hunter2_ »

slg wrote: post #25
yieldcrv wrote: post #3

> 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. To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. The mere fact that this is deemed as "novel" or newsworthy or intriguing is a poor reflection of society itself. Fortunately the…

>> 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. >To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this is less obvious when looking at how they define age discrimination. Specifically…

Perhaps age is just an oddball compared to the other protected classes, because there are legitimate reasons not to employ someone young (e.g., if the position requires x years of professional experience but the candidate has only been of working age for <x years) while there aren't many legitimate reasons not to employ someone old. Gender, race, etc. don't have this natural asymmetry.
Post reply on HN