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

71–80 of 163 posts

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

#71

Post by sjtindell »

CodeSgt wrote: post #35
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…

When I initially read that I honestly didn't think it was all that bad. Inappropriate? Yes. Lawsuit worthy? No. But then, I imagined if the same thing were said to a 58 year old black woman, and immediately realized that it's severity. Is it just me, or has racism towards white people become acceptable/main stream (at least, much more so than racism towards other races)? I feel as if my lack of a visceral reaction to…

I have to chuckle a little at your “is it just me”…this is literally one of pop culture/the internet’s biggest flame wars these days. No offense intended. It commonly spirals off into tangents about the modern definitions of racism vs. prejudice and many other threads. Sometimes I wish alongside articles like this there was a pre-prepared list of the 10 most common takes about a subject. So we can stop rehashing all that and get to the meat. I’m guilty of it too.

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

#72

Post by [deleted] »

striking wrote: post #17
__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.

[deleted]

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

#73

Post by hunter2_ »

striking wrote: post #17
__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.

> it's explicitly about giving equal consideration to everyone rather than giving anyone more favorable treatment

In absolute terms, it should be equal. In relative terms, the treatment is ostensibly better than it would be without any DEI efforts.

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

#74

Post by anonu »

colordrops wrote: post #68
helloworld11 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't speak for your family history in a personal sense and I get your main point about the ridiculous absurdity of racial groupings, but Islamic states and kingdoms which include the Arabic peninsula, were also notorious slave states for centuries. Again, despite many PC narratives, slavery was hardly the exclusive province of European colonial powers working against oppressed others around the world. Again though…

My family are poor christians from a 2000 year old farming village in southern lebanon who almost certainly nothing to do with the Islamic slave trade. But I get your point.

Which village?

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

#75

Post by rsanek »

tomhoward wrote: post #64
slg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

It’s at least valid to consider a young person insufficiently experienced for the job, as long as the hiring decision is legitimately made according to experience not numerical age alone.

That's not age discrimination though, that's having insufficient experience. You can be denied for lack of experience at any age.

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

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

RappingBoomer wrote: post #27
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…

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

White males are, by being white males, in two protected classes under the 14th Amendment as well as virtually all domains with statutory anti-discrimination laws.

Heck, the cass that established gender as a protected characteristic under the 14th Amendment, subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than merely the rational basis test that is the minimum for any legal distinction, was brought by male plaintiffs against a state law placing higher minimum age limits for men in a law controlling alcohol purchases. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

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

#77

Post by slg »

test6554 wrote: post #51
slg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

One could argue that a younger person could still be developing mentally and their decision quality and impulsiveness is undergoing change. Someone under 21 or 18 for example. But the same argument would be pretty nasty if applied to race.

The cutoff for discrimination is 40. It is perfectly legal (at least at the federal level) to discriminate against someone for being 39. That seems to imply that mental development is not a consideration here. The law is pretty clearly "don't discriminate against older people" rather than "don't discriminate based on age".

Also for all the other comments mentioning experience. Decisions based on experience are not discrimination because experience is pertinent to one's effectiveness in a job. It isn't discrimination if an NFL team decides not to hire a disabled player because the job of being a football player has strict physical requirements. It doesn't matter that the player's disability might normally qualify as a protected class in another line of work. It isn't discrimination because the job requires that selection criteria.

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

#78

Post by adra »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #48
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.

Absolutely, if we believe the individual's quoted comment as a fact,then certainly this points to discrimination. The problem is that HN isn't a court of law, and quotes made by litigants haven't been litigated for accuracy. As I stated, the IMHO opinion of ageism usually comes down to value/cost == worth-keeping. I'm in my 40s and still very productive. I work with some people in their 50s and they're great workers. That doesn't mean that all employees working for a company 20 years can or choose to keep working at peak performance. Seniority is often a carrot which can retain employees with deep company wisdom, but it can also inversely over-compensate an employee per their available talents. Maybe they're tired of working there, but forced to because working anywhere else is a 20%+ pay cut. Despite being miserable they could stick it out but just coast. That general pattern (which I have certainly seen with peers over the years), can lead to employees that have b en at a company for so long that their compensation is just completely out of whack with current market rates.

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

#80

Post by colordrops »

anonu wrote: post #74
colordrops wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My family are poor christians from a 2000 year old farming village in southern lebanon who almost certainly nothing to do with the Islamic slave trade. But I get your point.

Which village?

Small enough that I might reveal my identity by naming it.
Post reply on HN