The Picard Maneuver@startrek.website to Mildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 months agoThis person's rejection reasonstartrek.websiteimagemessage-square207fedilinkarrow-up11.23Karrow-down127
arrow-up11.2Karrow-down1imageThis person's rejection reasonstartrek.websiteThe Picard Maneuver@startrek.website to Mildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 months agomessage-square207fedilink
minus-squarequo@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·11 months agoNo, it’s not legally considered discrimination. In the US age discrimination is only when you discriminate against someone 40 or older. Discriminating against someone for being under 40, or discriminating against someone for their particular birthday is not considered a protected class.
minus-squarekadotux@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·edit-211 months agoI honestly can’t tell if you’re serious or not. edit: I’m not from the US and this seems like a very silly legislation. Unless I’m getting whoooshed.
minus-squarequo@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·11 months agoI’m serious, but yes, it’s silly legislation. Our lawmakers tend to be in their 60s and 70s so it’s not entirely surprising.
No, it’s not legally considered discrimination.
In the US age discrimination is only when you discriminate against someone 40 or older.
Discriminating against someone for being under 40, or discriminating against someone for their particular birthday is not considered a protected class.
I honestly can’t tell if you’re serious or not.
edit: I’m not from the US and this seems like a very silly legislation. Unless I’m getting whoooshed.
I’m serious, but yes, it’s silly legislation.
Our lawmakers tend to be in their 60s and 70s so it’s not entirely surprising.