[donmaq]

> You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black

So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'.

"Protected class" isn't very protected, as it leaves burden of proof to the victim, who needs to lawyer up & chase the proof via discovery.

[davidgay]

> So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'.

No, for large companies (those at risk of being sued) it works the other way round: they collect very detailed data to objectively justify any firing, otherwise they are at high risk of losing a discrimination lawsuit.

Hence "improvement plans", "needs improvement" ratings, etc, etc.

It is likely true that small and medium companies can get away with abuse though.

[mcherm]

> "Protected class" isn't very protected, as it leaves burden of proof to the victim

Surely though, you understand and agree that having this law is better than the alternative, where employers ARE allowed to fire someone simply for being a member of a protected class, and are even welcome to brag about doing so.

[trompetenaccoun]

Exactly, but there are even more fundamental problems with all these identity laws.

1. They're inherently unjust and anti-equality.

2. In the case of stuff like race and gender, the law doesn't even clearly define what terms like "black" and "white" are supposed to mean. There is no scientific definition because in physical reality race doesn't exist. It's assumed everyone follows race ideology, but even if we assumed that to be true then the premise of such suits is that someone committed a thought crime. Such cases are bound to lead to wrongful convictions as well as actual discrimination going unpunished because it can't be proven. These discrimination suits are the modern day equivalent of medieval witch trials.

3. They create division and conflict. That may be an intentional feature instead of a bug though.

[em-bee]

i don't quite agree. the law provides that being part of a protected group can not be used as a reason. that's enough. there is no need to prove a thought-crime. there is only need to prove that there is no justifiable reason for the action that lead to the discrimination, eg no justifiable reason to fire someone or to deny service. finding the real reason for the discrimination is not necessary

[trompetenaccoun]

So, saying "you can't be part of our group because you're not black" would be illegal in the US and the person could sue for damages?

Wanna see some examples proving the opposite? That is not how it works at all, what you describe is an example of equal legal rights, I already mentioned these laws are anti-equality. Anti constitutional even, not that many in the US seem to care.

[em-bee]

it depends on the purpose of the group. when it comes to employment or services to the public then yes. i don't see how that is anti-equality.