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

101–110 of 163 posts

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

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

“not designed, used, or intended” means neither designed, nor used, nor intended. You seem to be insisting that the “or” must be read as an “and” which is, obviously, an affront to the plain language of the test.

Not only does the Court in Griggs not ignore the legislative concerns motivating the inclusion of the explicit allowance for testing, it relates the debate, it's proximate cause, and the concern cited, and announces a rule very precisely aimed at avoiding the problem the provision was designed to avoid [see, most particularly, Footnote 10, p. 401 U.S. 434].

While there might, I suppose, be a not-insane argument that the Griggs Court took the wrong view of some elements of the legislative history and context, the claim that they blithely ignored it is untenable on its face.

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

#102

Post by ryan_lane »

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…

You don't need to imagine it happening to a minority group. It's a workplace violation against two protected classes: race, and protected age group (40+).

It's lawsuit worthy in general, and your post makes it pretty clear you don't pay attention to your company's anti-discrimination training.

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

#103

Post by pc2g4d »

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…

It certainly has, and it has been a key element in the radicalization and racialization of our politics. Many Trump voters were exactly that demographic, and resentful of the double standard. Not a healthy development for the body politic, and something we need to roll back.

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

#104

Post by xiphias2 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #60
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

While I agree with you that they are trying to do it, the Johnny Depp case was an example to show that there is a limit that will backfire after 6 years if crossed.

There are lots of cases in court where men are discriminated against (domestic violence was an example), but I believe that being white still has enough advantages generally. Agism is a stronger thing though that will get worse, as old people don't get instagram likes.

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

#105

Post by dragonwriter »

Ferrotin wrote: post #97
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The word “intended” is right there Right before the word "or."

It isn’t “designed” or “used” to racially discriminate if it’s not intended. The word “Intententionally,” specifically, is present in section 706(g) to expressly prevent accidental discrimination from violating Title VII.

> It isn’t “designed” or “used” to racially discriminate if it’s not intended.

You are trying to read the qualifications other than “intended“ in 703h into surplusage, since despite the “or”, “intended” would be the one and only consideration in your reading.

> The word “Intententionally,” specifically, is present in section 706(g) to expressly prevent accidental discrimination from violating Title VII.

706(g) of the Act, 42 USC 2000e-5(g), deals with the terms for equitable relief (injunctions, focus mostly specifically on injunctions for rehiring with back pay ), which, as is often the case with equitable relief, have higher standards than for legal relief (damages). In it, “intentionally” modifies “engaged in an unlawful employment practice”, which acknowledges that an employment practice may be umlawful without being engaged in intentionally (in which case, the type of remedies in 706(g) are not available, but compensatory damages remain available.)

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

#106

Post by earleybird »

klipt wrote: post #100
chitowneats wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The most diverse group possible consists 100% of black disabled trans lesbians, of course.

Kids in the Hall nailed it in 1994

"The Kids in the Hall" Episode #4.19"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1tFbZ5kaY8&t=94s

But do watch the whole sketch.

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

#107

Post by 8note »

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.

There's similarly good reasons to not hire somebody old though - theyve already been trained in some other work method, have/spend time with their families, have retirement sooner, etc

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

#108

Post by cat_plus_plus »

Should be a class action, it's impossible to work in Silicon Valley without endless racial hostility, most from obnoxious activists, but even from official management chain. How can one stay motivated when there is always a question whether he (let's admit it's a bigger question for guys) is passed over for a promotion or high visibility presentation because they don't want more of his kind of people.

I am not saying there is no racism against people with other skin tones or sexism against women. But it's actually possible to have discrimination against everyone at the same time, where individuals with best talent, experience and character are passed over in favor of tribalism of decision makers. Actually shareholders should sue tech companies to implement individual merit, transparency and work environment free from racial harassment.

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

#109

Post by Thermosetty »

helloworld11 wrote: post #39
colordrops wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

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…

Of course you see yourself differently as an "Eastern European" - Those distinctions don't translate to the US because when juxtaposed with darker skinned people (particularly the Descendants of Slaves in the US), the differences between Europeans becomes negligible.

Eg - When the Irish/Italians immigrated here in the 20th century they were initially seen as "other" but after a few decades "graduated" to white. So yes you do benefit, even if you don't realize it.

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

#110

Post by chitowneats »

bombcar wrote: post #47
chitowneats wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What a consolation that will be next time a job application is rejected due to "culture fit".
Post reply on HN