So requiring to pay for a position only for a specific skin color is not actual systemic racism, as long as color is not white, because white people are racists and this fights against that, or am I completely missing the mark?
I'm sure people here are also well versed in silicon valley HR hiring practices regarding skin color based quotas.
I think OP's point has to do with the perceived value of their moral signaling vs the actual morals themselves.
It is a win-win for Reddit in terms of perception, whether they have to fight a case because of it or not. If anything, this would be an 'any publicity is good publicity' situation.
Now if it is actually inline with a truly moral stance...who cares. In this system there are only 3 morals. Money, money and more money.
1. A director looks more like an employee post-AB5, so it could be employment discrimination in California.
2. Independent contractors are protected against some race-based mistreatment in California.
3. The Unruh Act prohibits California businesses from race discrimination in offering “advantages” and “privileges” to non employees.
4. The next employee fired will have a much better case that their employment was terminated based on race — as Reddit openly does make decisions based on race.
Granted, there are responses to all of these. Maybe even constitutional defenses. Maybe they’ll argue some other state’s laws apply, but all US states have pretty broad non discrimination laws — for a reason.
A director of the company will easily pass the ABC test anyway. Especially given that he's a director at lots of other companies and has an existing full time job.
In the past, SCOTUS has ruled that laws banning discrimination only grant new rights to the group the legislators were interested in helping. So anti-age discrimination laws only prevent discriminating against the old, not the young. If you understand the politics of race in America, it will actually not be very interesting to see how US courts will rule here.
The fact that you can write “We are an equal opportunity affirmative action employer.” and not get sued gives the lie to this. The plain reading of the law and how it is interpreted and enforced are at odds.
One, you can't use race, gender, etc unless it's relevant to the job, but here it could be seen as being relevant to the job. Two, a board director position is not a job, and so it's not covered by this law.
I’m sure they’ll argue whatever they can. AB5 makes it more difficult to not be an employee in California. And there are far more non-discrimination laws than “employee.”
If you think some specific, non-employment nondiscrimination law is relevant here, please cite it. But note that this is a shift in your previous position, which is that this is a job.
It's worse than just illegal, now that they announced that, everyone will assume his skin color is the only reason he was appointed (or at least a major factor) - despite an impressive resume.
Reddit hasn't been owned by Conde Nast for a long time.
Board members aren't employees, so discrimination rules don't apply. In fact California already has a law requiring discrimination based on gender (another protected class) for boards. All California companies must have one female board member and have at least two by 2021.
Hiring and firing in the US based on race is typically unlawful, even if the candidate is qualified. You can’t use race as a qualification.
It’s a challenge to the laws, and I assume Reddit(or Conde Nast) wants to raise it.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&...
reply