News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit. Parent comment

Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by ChuckMcM on Thursday January 05, 2017 @01:50AM (#13325278)
Always an interesting choice, the upside if you join is you get some money if the suit is settled, I presume the only downside is that you pretty much won't ever be employed there ever if they have paid out a legal settlement check to you. (It turns out it isn't illegal not to hire based on previously being sued by someone). I doubt they would be forced to hire you if they settle. (which would be a huge downside in my opinion, you'd go to work at a company with them already hating you for working there.)

So I guess it really comes down to whether you think there is any chance at all that they would ever hire you. I doubt anyone would hold participating in the suit against you, it isn't like you started it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by codeddesign on Thursday January 05, 2017 @04:10AM (#13325813)
But here lies the problem..suing simply for the sake of suing. He clearly stated that he did feel that he was discriminated nor did he make it apparent that his life was dramatically altered from him not getting the job. And yet, you encourage him to sue anyways purely for the sake that he may get a little cash.

There are legitimate lawsuits in which people's lives have been dramatically affected, and then there are the plethora of scum cases in which people are looking for quick cash. People say that Trump will take American down..no, it's people's unethical mindset that they feel they can take advantage of our basic right to sue for compensation when an aggresses circumstance has occurred.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by cjhopman on Thursday January 05, 2017 @04:19AM (#13325844)
You don't have to feel discriminated against to be discriminated against. Corporations (and individual people) should pay for minor abuses against large groups (typically people already pay for large abuses against minor groups).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by ryandrake on Thursday January 05, 2017 @03:39AM (#13325695)
At no point in the future will you be any younger. So if you think you are not being hired because they are discriminating based on age, then there is no downside to participating in the settlement--you won't be hired either way. If you think there is a chance you will be hired in the future, then they are not discriminating based on age.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by sgift on Thursday January 05, 2017 @03:55AM (#13325756)
This assumes that the age discrimination is an absolute criteria (over age x? Out) and not one of several factors (e.g. a tie breaker if you have multiple broadly similar applicants).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by Klockan on Thursday January 05, 2017 @09:49AM (#13327469)
I have seen plenty of older people getting hired at Google so it is obviously possible.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by hkmurakami on Thursday January 05, 2017 @03:06AM (#13325554)
That's fascinating considering we don't have that kind of negative consequence for participating in shareholder lawsuits.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by akud on Thursday January 05, 2017 @03:24AM (#13325628)
It makes me wonder if that's due to the relative power of capital vs labor. Is that what you were getting at?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by pzh on Thursday January 05, 2017 @08:56AM (#13327080)
> It turns out it isn't illegal not to hire based on previously being sued by someone.

I thought there were laws to prevent Google from retaliating against somebody who sued them, and it would be illegal for them to not hire you on that basis alone...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by ChuckMcM on Thursday January 05, 2017 @11:30AM (#13328476)
Retaliation protection is about protecting you from being fired for bringing a protected labor suit. That doesn't apply to hiring. And as I understand it there is nothing wrong with actively discriminating against people who didn't go to a preferred university[1] as that is not a protected class.

[1] And as with diversity (or any discrimination) it reduces the chance that you'll employ that really star employee.

[ Parent | on HN ]