[nknighthb]

What if the company is based in northern Alaska? What if work hours are 2000-0400?

It's hard to make out a disparate impact claim to begin with. Doing so on the basis that you don't like the living arrangements would seem impossible. What limiting principle would the courts apply that wouldn't result in legal liability for every company that doesn't allow employees to telecommute?

[tptacek]

It's funny you bring that up: employers need to be careful about asking where employees live, out of concern of giving the impression that a candidate's selection depends on where they live or are willing to live. You can ask "can you arrive at the job site reliably every day at 8:45AM", but you cannot safely ask "do you live in the Chicago metro area".

In practice, people do casually ask where candidates live (usually to find out if they require relocation), but companies also don't tend to select only employees willing to live in a dormitory.

Requiring employees to work at a particular job site is uncontroversial; in fact, it's overwhelmingly the norm for all employment. The same thing is absolutely not true of requiring employees to live at a particular location.

[nknighthb]

I notice you didn't answer my question, or provide any practical reason why my hypotheticals are better than Meta's actual practice. Disparate impact claims must demonstrate actual harm to a protected class as distinct from the rest of the population, they don't consist of pseudolegalistic "well, as long as you didn't say it..." arguments.

[tptacek]

Huh? I just pointed out that candidates can make claims simply because prospective employers ask them where they live. I have a hard time believing that yours is a good-faith response.

[nknighthb]

If your assertion is accurate, it's presumably an overreaction to concerns about being sued for redlining. But that's irrelevant here, to the point of being utterly off-topic. Meta's policy poses no risk that knowledge of your present address would be used to discriminate against a protected class. Instead, it is part of your duties as an employee: Live in this house.

You would first have to establish that that duty has a statistically significant harmful effect on persons over 40 that it does not have on other groups. This will not be easy, people under 40 have families, too!

It will be further complicated by the fact that the same effect occurs simply by virtue of a workplace being in a remote, hostile environment, or having work hours incompatible with a typical family life, requiring a limiting principle, which you have not provided.

If you pass that hurdle, Meta would have the opportunity to establish that the policy is based on a reasonable factor other than age. The court would have to find that Meta's policy and/or its purposes are unreasonable. That seems unlikely.

[tptacek]

Redlining is the process of not giving people mortgages depending on whether they're from minority neighborhoods. I don't understand how it maps into this discussion, so I don't know how to reply.

[nknighthb]

Redlining has a more general meaning of discriminating against people based on where they live (e.g. in minority neighborhoods).

If you are not speaking of discriminating based on where people live, then I have no idea why you are bringing up employers supposedly avoiding asking where people live. It makes no contextual sense, and has no relevance to this discussion. Asking people where they live is not, in itself, discriminatory or unlawful.

It would be great if you would detail exactly why you think Meta's policy may be unlawful, and do so by reference to actual law, not apparently-random HR policies that you don't seem to want to explain the supposed basis of.

[yummyfajitas]

Requiring employees to work at a particular job site is uncontroversial; in fact, it's overwhelmingly the norm for all employment.

I don't understand - what does the "norm" have to do with anything? Are you asserting that some underlying legal principle demands that all employers stay within spitting distance of the average?

If not, I don't see how this policy would even fall within some sort of disparate impact theory. As far as I know, disparate impact lawsuits apply to selection processes. I.e. if the employer hires fewer members of a protected class, a process is bad. But if fewer members of a protected class accept job offers, that doesn't fit into disparate impact.