undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgiantg24y ago0 comments

"John is talking extensively about working in a garage because his three children and wife are home. In the interview, he made references to being single and was visibly in an indoor desk area."

If John is reading, you now have documentation that marital status has played a part in the decision process (even if not the sole issue) should they decide to let you go.

0 comments

ds_store23874y ago

No… they have documented evidence that the company noted discrepancies between his interview and subsequent comments. Nothing there states that this was a problem; it’s a diff.

Besides, he quit.

giantg2OP4y ago

Missed the quiting part.

It doesn't really matter if it's a diff. It matters that it was a diff that the husband apparently thought pertinent enough to mention. If it plays any part in the decision, or can show that they preferred single people in the interview, then it could be basis for a law suit (whether it would win or go to settlement is a different issue).

ds_store23874y ago

Nothing in the letters even hints that it played a part of the decision-making process for hiring or firing. The husband also mentioned his hair was different and he now wears glasses. Does that mean corrective vision also played a part in the process?

1 more reply

kelnos4y ago

Ehhhh, I mean, sure, John could sue about this and cost the company some money (because you can sue about anything), but marital status did not at all play a part in the decision process. It was, however, a signal that the employee was lying about material things.

Regardless, John quit. He wasn't not hired in the first place, and he wasn't fired.

giantg2OP4y ago

True. I suppose I hate my job and the lying company that I fantasize about someone catching companies (or the government) doing bad things and being compensated for it.

kordlessagain4y ago

If John is reading this, remember you quit.

giantg2OP4y ago

Oops, missed that part.

rootusrootus4y ago

> marital status

... is not a protected class.

gamblor9564y ago

Yes, it is, in some states (including CA): https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/discrimination/marital/

giantg2OP4y ago

https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-marital-st...

rootusrootus4y ago

Still not a protected class, which means the bar for proving discrimination is going to be pretty high. Especially if it happens after you've been hired.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

ds_store23874y ago

No… they have documented evidence that the company noted discrepancies between his interview and subsequent comments. Nothing there states that this was a problem; it’s a diff.

Besides, he quit.

giantg2OP4y ago

Missed the quiting part.

ds_store23874y ago

1 more reply

kelnos4y ago

Regardless, John quit. He wasn't not hired in the first place, and he wasn't fired.

giantg2OP4y ago

True. I suppose I hate my job and the lying company that I fantasize about someone catching companies (or the government) doing bad things and being compensated for it.

kordlessagain4y ago

If John is reading this, remember you quit.

giantg2OP4y ago

Oops, missed that part.

rootusrootus4y ago

> marital status

... is not a protected class.

gamblor9564y ago

Yes, it is, in some states (including CA): https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/discrimination/marital/

giantg2OP4y ago

https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-marital-st...

rootusrootus4y ago

Still not a protected class, which means the bar for proving discrimination is going to be pretty high. Especially if it happens after you've been hired.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse