Analogy here would be, I’m saying I almost got robbed, robbery is real. You’re coming and saying, “this new law won’t solve your issue, it’s for actual robbery only.”
Awareness is good too, a lot of people’s here have anecdotes from their time in academia (almost all South Asian professors are from higher castes), where it is easier to set up protections.
Good luck gathering any evidence to even fight such a case. You’re only protected insofar as you can prove in the courts that you were discriminated against.
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. Can you describe a specific incident in your employment history where you were fired from a job or denied a promotion due to your caste or ancestry? You should be able to sue for this right now (even before SB403) with this law:
IANAL, but basically anything that negatively impacts a protected class and doesn't have a clear business purpose can be argued as discrimination. "Reasonable accommodations" without "undue hardship" are key phrases you will commonly hear as being the expectations for employers. Those accommodations can include stuff like installing ramps for an employee in a wheelchair or granting a new mother time to pump. The employee doesn't have to be fired or denied a promotion, simply making their job or life more difficult is often enough to be considered discrimination.
I do, but I'm wondering, how far can SB403 go before you start bumping into 1st Amendment issues?
1. If a bunch of co-workers who are vegetarian due to their ancestry choose to exclude me from lunches because I want to eat meat, can I sue them for caste discrimination?
2. If someone makes fun of me because I wear a mark on my forehead, can I sue them for caste discrimination?
All laws need to have bounds that operate within the constraints of the US Constitution. This is why I was limiting the scope of my comments to hiring/firing/promotion related topics. I am sympathetic to social issues like what OP is talking about, but also do not believe that new laws can solve all of them.