Re:Genders.wtf
by escapedmoose on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @01:14PM
(#34342110)
Except your own comment highlighted exactly what’s wrong with that: without the data the court won’t know how to rule. If you insist that the complainant is the one who has to investigate the salaries and work performance of all her coworkers, you’re immediately setting her up for failure. Requiring the company itself to record this information can provide evidence that they’re abusing employees—evidence that the employees themselves may never be able to produce.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Genders.wtf
by mikrotikker on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @03:22PM
(#34344079)
Yea I like it when criminals post their criminal activity online. It's funny cos it shows the low IQ of the criminal and when they are charged for the crime it's also funny.
> Except your own comment highlighted exactly what’s wrong with that: without the data the court won’t know how to rule.
And the burden of proof is on the accuser. The court doesn't just say "we don't have the data, so we must assume it's what the accuser says".
> If you insist that the complainant is the one who has to investigate the salaries and work performance of all her coworkers, you’re immediately setting her up for failure.
Yes! And that's exactly how the court works: the burden of proof is on the accuser.
> Requiring the company itself to record this information can provide evidence that they’re abusing employees
And why on earth would the company want to do this, when it could potentially harm them?
Re:Genders.wtf
by escapedmoose on Thursday January 12, 2023 @11:28PM
(#34363952)
The company won’t want to record this info, but requiring them to do so could prevent them from abusing employees using the methods stated above.
Re:Genders.wtf
by seanmcdirmid on Thursday January 12, 2023 @11:31PM
(#34363971)
Civil litigation places less burden of proof in the accuser than legal litigation. They don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable amount of doubt, so all they have to do is get the jury/judge to believe the violation is likely.
They don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt like in a criminal trial, but the burden of proof is still on the accuser. The accuser has to convince the jury that discrimination occurred, it's not a default assumption that companies are biased and they have to have the data to prove they are not.