Not true in the US. They could ban anyone born in the entire month of April, or anyone who “looks like a pot smoker” if they wanted to.
Applicants, employees and former employees are ONLY protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
I wonder if an argument could be made that birthdate is a component of your genetic information including family medical history? It is also potentially age discrimination?
Yeah we typically thing age discrimination is saying we only hire people between 20-40y/o but it would also cover it if you said “I won’t hire someone 21 years old only” and still applies to banning someone 21.5 years old. And 21 years and 6 months and 27 days old.
Same applies if I ban anyone with an age divisible by 3. It’s a group of people, but if their age has anything to do with why you aren’t hiring them then I’d say this applies.
Because how old someone is is relative to the current time. And that’s the wording that the commenter used: People who are x years, y months, and z days old. The next day those same people will be a day older.
Say the discrimination was about people born on Dec 20 instead of April, in that case they (where I am) are currently X years, 11 months, and 30 days old, and tomorrow is their birthday.
I just realized that they did calculate it the wrong direction though, the 4/20 peeps are 3 months and 30 or 29 days old today (not sure on that) today.
Creative thoughts, but the exact definitions don’t track (from GINA):
Genetic information.–
(A) In general.–The term “genetic information” means, with respect to any individual, information about–
(i) such individual’s genetic tests,
(ii) the genetic tests of family members of such individual, and
(iii) the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of such individual.
(B) Inclusion of genetic services and participation in genetic research.–Such term includes, with respect to any individual, any request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or participation in clinical research which includes genetic services, by such individual or any family member of such individual.
I doubt it - your age isn’t determined by your genetics. The family medical history part is so that someone doesn’t fire you (or not hire you) for things like your mom having a kind of cancer that is hereditary. As a manager, if one of my employees tells me their mom has cancer, I’m not allowed to ask what kind.
It wouldn’t get anywhere in the US. Age is the closest protected class, but only applies to over 40 in the US. Discrimination based on month and day of birth isn’t actually illegal.
I honestly think there’s a gray area here and it’s worth talking to a lawyer if anything. There are certainly some protections for peoples under 40. Being denied a promotion because you’re “too young” is certainly a protection. The catch is you have to prove it.
This case is easy to prove though if there are any laws over this.
Edit: but now that I think about it, this is only really a protection if you’re already hired at the place. If you just slam the door on people before they can get in, discrimination seems to be legal.
I believe it’s legal in the US to pass someone over for promotion because they’re too young. The only protected class related to age is being over 40 (potentially different in some states).
but now that I think about it, this is only really a protection if you’re already hired at the place. If you just slam the door on people before they can get in, discrimination seems to be legal.
Pretty sure that protection so applies to the application process. Can’t have places rejecting every non-white candidate for being the wrong race. The problem is proving that you were rejected for a BS reason is really hard because they usually don’t flat out say it, and especially not in writing
Being denied a promotion because you’re “too young” is certainly a protection.
It’s not actually. Age protections really do only apply to old people. If the person in the post is over 40 though, and got rejected for their birthday, they could probably at least get the company to overturn the rejection. Not sure how well they’d do in court. Most of this stuff doesn’t get enforced well, and that one is already a stretch
Not hard to extrapolate a case from this. Imagine a landlord refusing to rent because you’re a “scorpio” or an employer turning you down because they’re looking for a “dog” person.
Agreed. A lot of people in this thread are confusing what they believe should be illegal discrimination with what is actually illegal discrimination. Or they believe discrimination laws are more broadly encompassing than they are. There are a lot of kinds of discrimination that most of us agree is bad and shouldn’t be allowed… but unfortunately is not illegal.
That is probably a slam dunk (minor) discrimination lawsuit. Your circumstances of birth, including the date, are not something you can be judged for.
Follow up with your ID or Birth certificate and ask “Excuse me?”
@ocassionallyaduck
@The_Picard_Maneuver
Not true in the US. They could ban anyone born in the entire month of April, or anyone who “looks like a pot smoker” if they wanted to.
Applicants, employees and former employees are ONLY protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
I wonder if an argument could be made that birthdate is a component of your genetic information including family medical history? It is also potentially age discrimination?
Technically this is discrimination based on age.
They were born 4/20/(year). You could make an argument they are discriminating all people exactly (X) years, 4 months, and 2 days old.
Yeah we typically thing age discrimination is saying we only hire people between 20-40y/o but it would also cover it if you said “I won’t hire someone 21 years old only” and still applies to banning someone 21.5 years old. And 21 years and 6 months and 27 days old.
Same applies if I ban anyone with an age divisible by 3. It’s a group of people, but if their age has anything to do with why you aren’t hiring them then I’d say this applies.
20 days
No, the comment was written on the 18th so 2 days. The 4 months only matches because this is December.
wtf does the comment date have to do with April being the (4th) month and the (20th) being the 20th day of the month?
Because how old someone is is relative to the current time. And that’s the wording that the commenter used: People who are x years, y months, and z days old. The next day those same people will be a day older.
Say the discrimination was about people born on Dec 20 instead of April, in that case they (where I am) are currently X years, 11 months, and 30 days old, and tomorrow is their birthday.
I just realized that they did calculate it the wrong direction though, the 4/20 peeps are 3 months and 30 or 29 days old today (not sure on that) today.
Age discrimination only applies if you’re above 40.
Creative thoughts, but the exact definitions don’t track (from GINA):
Genetic information.–
(A) In general.–The term “genetic information” means, with respect to any individual, information about–
(i) such individual’s genetic tests,
(ii) the genetic tests of family members of such individual, and
(iii) the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of such individual.
(B) Inclusion of genetic services and participation in genetic research.–Such term includes, with respect to any individual, any request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or participation in clinical research which includes genetic services, by such individual or any family member of such individual.
© Exclusions.–The term “genetic information” shall not include information about the sex or age of any individual.
I doubt it - your age isn’t determined by your genetics. The family medical history part is so that someone doesn’t fire you (or not hire you) for things like your mom having a kind of cancer that is hereditary. As a manager, if one of my employees tells me their mom has cancer, I’m not allowed to ask what kind.
Nobody said that they are from the US.
At the moment you have 69 upvotes, so I can’t, in good conscience, upvote you. But you’re right.
Funny joke number amirite
almost as funny as that other number…
Yes. You are right.
Upvote discrimination.
It wouldn’t get anywhere in the US. Age is the closest protected class, but only applies to over 40 in the US. Discrimination based on month and day of birth isn’t actually illegal.
I honestly think there’s a gray area here and it’s worth talking to a lawyer if anything. There are certainly some protections for peoples under 40. Being denied a promotion because you’re “too young” is certainly a protection. The catch is you have to prove it.
This case is easy to prove though if there are any laws over this.
Edit: but now that I think about it, this is only really a protection if you’re already hired at the place. If you just slam the door on people before they can get in, discrimination seems to be legal.
I believe it’s legal in the US to pass someone over for promotion because they’re too young. The only protected class related to age is being over 40 (potentially different in some states).
Pretty sure that protection so applies to the application process. Can’t have places rejecting every non-white candidate for being the wrong race. The problem is proving that you were rejected for a BS reason is really hard because they usually don’t flat out say it, and especially not in writing
It’s not actually. Age protections really do only apply to old people. If the person in the post is over 40 though, and got rejected for their birthday, they could probably at least get the company to overturn the rejection. Not sure how well they’d do in court. Most of this stuff doesn’t get enforced well, and that one is already a stretch
Whelp, time for arson then. Sorry, it’s the rules.
What about star sign? That’s got to be illegal, and it’s p close to this
They listed the protected classes. Which one is astrology?
Yeah yeah not protected, but same could be said for requiring blond hair or blue eyes. Still discrimination
I am not a lawyer
They did specifically list genetics
How is that different from any other accident of birth that can’t be changed? People really do discriminate based on when you were born:
Not hard to extrapolate a case from this. Imagine a landlord refusing to rent because you’re a “scorpio” or an employer turning you down because they’re looking for a “dog” person.
Bad things, but not illegal
Agreed. A lot of people in this thread are confusing what they believe should be illegal discrimination with what is actually illegal discrimination. Or they believe discrimination laws are more broadly encompassing than they are. There are a lot of kinds of discrimination that most of us agree is bad and shouldn’t be allowed… but unfortunately is not illegal.
Yeah more of a case for public shaming or filing a complaint or even just an honest Glass Door review
Because requiring blond hair and blue eyes would, by definition, exclude people based on race.
Not necessarily true, but 100% discrimination based on genetics, which is a protected class.
Yeah bad example. I’m on break at work
And that’s probably for the better.
Tell me how you really feel why don’t you
Just set your profile to @ not US system and your birthday will be 20/4 instead!
Classic age discrimination.
Make sure to find a lawyer who is 69 years old and whose license plate is LOL80085.