They are protected against certain kinds of discrimination, but no human discriminated against them. It was simply a dispassionate algorithm and an algorithm can't display malice!
Grrr... or that's what they, and probably the courts, would say.
The OP calling it "discrimination laundering" had it right.
> probably the courts, would say
The courts are the ones that created the doctrine of "disparate impact." A criterion can be discriminatory even if it doesn't look discriminatory on its face. And, importantly, it does not require intent to discriminate, only impact.
I don't think you can use "no human discriminated against them" as a defense. It could still be constructive discrimination.
Re:Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork
by roflc0ptic on Thursday July 11, 2019 @12:35PM
(#20412966)
I'm hazy on the details, but it's not a protected class in the same way that e.g. race is. In alleging racial discrimination (in certain legal venues), statistical evidence of racial discrimination is admissible, however statistical evidence of age discrimination is not. E.g. if there are layoffs, and every grey head disappears, that's not grounds to allege discrimination. You'd have to have someone on record saying "we're firing all of the old fucks because they remind me of the inescapability of my own mortality" to litigate.
Someone with a better grasp on the particulars here please chime in :)
Isn't age a protected class though? At least in the US, discrimination over 40 is covered by the EEOC.