[Rinzler89]

>The American workers say that India’s Tata Consultancy Services illegally discriminated against them based on their race and age, firing them

Question to the Americans: if in the US you don't need a reason to fire someone, how can you prove the company was discriminating you when they fired you if they didn't give a reason.

[ryandrake]

From the article:

> In their complaints, the former employees cite comments that TCS’s global human resources head Milind Lakkad made in an interview with Indian media last year. He said TCS is trying to reduce the number of Americans it employs in the U.S. and would like to provide more opportunities to Indians there, according to the report.

> One former worker said in a complaint that TCS human-resources staff told employees in an all-hands meeting that the company planned to use money saved by closing down a unit that employed many of the American workers to provide jobs to more Indian nationals in the U.S.

[pdonis]

> in the US you don't need a reason to fire someone

That's not quite what "at will employment" in the US actually means. What it means is that an employer can fire you at any time for any reason that isn't an unlawful reason. It doesn't mean the employer doesn't have to give a reason at all, or that the employer can simply refuse to give a reason if questioned, particularly if there is an allegation that the firing was for an unlawful reason.

[Rinzler89]

Ok so it's not really at will. There's still laws and regulations around firings.

[snapetom]

Correct. "At will" isn't quite the dystopian corporate nightmare some make it out to be. You can't just make up a reason. It has to be valid, and even if it is, it will be a headache for the legal department if there is even a hint that the person was targeted for being in a protected class. If it's proven the company fabricated the reason, well, you might as well name the company after person at that point.

That's why companies still go through an enormous amount of procedural and documentation hoops before they fire someone, including PIPs.

[D13Fd]

> It has to be valid

It doesn’t have to be valid. You can fire someone because you don’t like them, or for no reason at all.

You just can’t fire them for a prohibited reason, such as race, age over 40, sex, disability etc.

Needing a reason is more of a practical problem - every person is a member of at least two protected classes (everyone has a race and sex). If you have no reason for firing a person, it’s often pretty easy for them to argue it was really based on a protected characteristic.

[snapetom]

No, there has to be a reason to determine unemployment benefit eligibility.

No smart company will ever put down "don't like them" or something more PC like, "culture misalignment." That's an invitation for legal issues. They're going to tie it back to performance as much as they can, and that takes time and effort.

[slim]

a valid reason can be "to make more profit"

[ja27]

I always called it "being Tata'ed". I know multiple people that have had to train their direct replacement at TCS. The trick is, the companies subcontract whole functions to Tata who are then free to hire H1Bs that then aren't "direct replacements" for the former employee.

[rufus_foreman]

Well first of all, for protected groups, you don't need to prove the reason, you need to prove "disparate impact". Don't need intent.

And even when you need intent, these people are like people who do insider trading. They tend to leave a trail. They think they're smart. Then they talk in detail about the crimes they are doing in logged chat rooms. It's hilarious.

[mjh2539]

Because there usually is in fact a reason and just because they did not disclose it to you does not mean the reason does not exist and it does not mean that it won't/can't be found via subpoena/deposition.

[Rinzler89]

Ok, but if there's no reason?

Or what do you do when the reason is something somewhat objective like "performance" because you didn't meet your deadlines or something. Can you claim discrimination then?

Otherwise what's stopping everyone from claiming discrimination every time they get laid off?

[otoburb]

>>Otherwise what's stopping everyone from claiming discrimination every time they get laid off?

You can claim discrimination, but then you'll need somebody (usually an attorney you hire) to file a lawsuit against the company. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you'll also need to cite a specific type of discrimination for your case to have standing.

[whimsicalism]

> Ok, but if there's no reason?

If there is no reason, why were you fired?

You can easily google/ask chatgpt the answer to your questions - the answer is that some companies are nowadays very risk averse in laying people off precisely because they are afraid of discrimination lawsuits, which is why they generally have very solid documentation of performance problems (hence the reason for the modern Performance Improvement Plan as a papertrail)

[Rinzler89]

>If there is no reason, why were you fired?

Behause they can? To cover their ass? I duuno.

I'm asking since I live in an EU country where you can get laid off for no reason and employers usually provide no exact reason in writing precisely to potentially avoid getting sued.

They just terminate your contract and let you know they terminate your contract by giving you your notice and that's that, you're gone in 30-90 days, no need to provide an explanation as to why they decided to terminate you since they're not required by law.

So I'm asking to know how it's like in the US if it's like here. If employers aren't required by law to provide termination reason, why would they?

[benglish11]

In most US states the employer doesn’t need to provide a reason for dismissal. Whether they do or don’t you may sue your employer or file a complaint with the state oversight agency. In that lawsuit if you have persuasive evidence of discrimination (race, age, pregnancy, gender, etc) then you may win a large settlement or a judgment if it actually goes to trial. The company will provide evidence why they fired you for non-discriminatory reasons.

[tpmoney]

The reason I was always told was that terminating an employee for cause is the only way not to take a hit to your unemployment insurance if they file for unemployment. So if they have any "good" reason for firing you, it's in their best interests to provide that reason.

[gambiting]

>>I'm asking since I live in an EU country where you can get laid off for no reason and employers usually provide no exact reason in writing precisely to potentially avoid getting sued.

What EU country is that?

[Rinzler89]

>What EU country is that?

Austria.

[whimsicalism]

Not providing a reason is often insufficient to defend against a good discrimination lawsuit, especially after discovery.

[lolinder]

> Ok, but what do you do when the reason is something somewhat objective like "performance" because you didn't meet your deadlines or something. Can you claim discrimination then?

Usually if that's the reason the company will go to great pains to document it and fire you properly, for cause. This is where PIPs (performance improvement plans) come in—they document the specific areas where performance is lacking, set specific targets for improvement, show that those targets were not met in the time allotted, and then fire you.

If a company doesn't do that then yeah, they're leaving themselves open to a discrimination suit. It doesn't usually happen because lawsuits are expensive and unemployed people tend to not have the resources to fight back, but larger companies will usually take pains to be sure they're covered.

[georgeplusplus]

They could have friends on the inside that told them they were replaced by h1b holders to tip them off

[idiotsecant]

Its difficult, but that's why discovery exists.

[bparsons]

Precisely. This is not a problem with Tata. It is a problem with the extremely backward labour laws in the United States.