you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 307 points 2 years ago (50 children)

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?"

  • source
  • hideshow 50 child comments
  • [–] 167 points 2 years ago* (27 children)

    @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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    No, the comment was written on the 18th so 2 days. The 4 months only matches because this is December.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    wtf does the comment date have to do with April being the (4th) month and the (20th) being the 20th day of the month?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Age discrimination only applies if you're above 40.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    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.

    (C) Exclusions.--The term "genetic information" shall not include information about the sex or age of any individual.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (14 replies)
  • [–] 61 points 2 years ago (19 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    What about star sign? That's got to be illegal, and it's p close to this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    They listed the protected classes. Which one is astrology?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (11 children)

    Yeah yeah not protected, but same could be said for requiring blond hair or blue eyes. Still discrimination

    I am not a lawyer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    They did specifically list genetics

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Exactly. And though there are protected classes at the federal level, there are also some at the state level and they vary. I'm in California, and we have more than most. If you're a business owner or manager, you have to know what they are where you are or it can be really bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Because requiring blond hair and blue eyes would, by definition, exclude people based on race.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments