Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by _moof 1630 days ago
> That's only true if they can prove the reason isn't one of several prohibited reasons (racism, sexism, ageism, etc.).

They don't need to prove anything. In employment discrimination cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
2 comments
lostcolony 1630 days ago
It's still a risk. An assertion of discrimination, even without evidence, is going to be a painful court case. After all, "Soandso said he didn't like X people, and then fired me" is impossible to prove or disprove, but it sure can rack up some court time and lawyer fees, with the possibility of a loss in the event of an unsympathetic jury.

But a documented process, that was followed, that set defined goals, and recorded failures, is going to be a much faster and more sure trial.

link
garbagecoder 1630 days ago
Wrong. Google “Title VII burden shifting framework.” It will cost you tens of thousands to get a frivolous case dismissed. In wage/hour cases, the burden is almost entirely shifted to the employer.

Also with respect to the attorney fee provisions, in California they are almost entirely one way in practice even the ones that are loser pays in reality.

link