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

Post by Ferrotin » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 1:35 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #88

Ferrotin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Griggs vs. Duke Power. The CRA explicitly allows testing. It was amended to introduce the word “intentionally.” The courts ignored the text of the bill and the intent of the congressmen who voted for it in developing disparate impact theory.

> Griggs vs. Duke Power. Griggs vs. Duke Power does not, in any way, establish that White males are less protected than anyone else, which was the question. And your rants about it in this post wouldn't make that different even if they were accurate. > The CRA explicitly allows testing. So does Griggs . If, and here Griggs quotes the language of the statute authorizing the use of professionally-developed tests, they…

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 1:37 AM UTC

Ferrotin wrote: post #92

dragonwriter wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Griggs vs. Duke Power. Griggs vs. Duke Power does not, in any way, establish that White males are less protected than anyone else, which was the question. And your rants about it in this post wouldn't make that different even if they were accurate. > The CRA explicitly allows testing. So does Griggs . If, and here Griggs quotes the language of the statute authorizing the use of professionally-developed tests, they…

The word “intended” is right there.

Post by striking » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 1:47 AM UTC

chitowneats wrote: post #93

striking wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, hiring is zero sum, but if you're complaining about the suggestions I just gave, those work to remedy bias in a hiring pipeline rather than explicitly making people's lives harder. In other words, if you are unhappy that you no longer have an advantage because those rules are being implemented, you are seeking to benefit from policies that would otherwise advantage you as a result of your attributes, ones that m…

I'm self taught. No college degree. Raised by a single mother on government assistance. I'm very tired of hearing about all the advantages I have from people born with the silver spoon, just not white. It's very common to run into such individuals in tech. Race-focused DEI is very beneficial to people like this because they have all the elite pedigree without any of the racial baggage. Rarely do I see these efforts h…

Post by thethimble » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 1:48 AM UTC

hunter2_ wrote: post #50

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…

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 by klipt » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 1:51 AM UTC

chitowneats wrote: post #69

umeshunni wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more DEI-aware workplace might have phrased it better and said something like "Sorry Bob, but we're trying to hire more diverse candidates for these roles"

The way they've bastardized the definition of the word "diverse" so thoroughly among American institutions is really something to behold.