
Ask HN: Can/should I sue for discrimination? - throwaway017365
I had a job interview last week for a software engineer position. The interviewer lasted a little over an hour and he was really interested in me, but towards the end he asked me if I was married and what my age was (I said I was single and 32). I didn&#x27;t think anything of it at the time, but him asking my age made me uncomfortable. At the end he said I would move to the next step which would be a technical challenge and that he would send it over. But then two days later he emailed me saying that they wouldn&#x27;t move forward, stating that &quot;they couldn&#x27;t match my ambitions&quot;. I thought it was odd because he was so interested, it didn&#x27;t seem honest. I think he didn&#x27;t go forward because of my age (and possibly marital status)<p>Can&#x2F;should I sue for this? and if so how would I go about it?
======
PragmaticPulp
Definitely No.

Suing companies is much harder than Internet comment sections imply. You would
need an airtight case for any reasonable lawyer to proceed with such a case.
From your post, you don’t appear to have any smoking gun evidence that they
declined you due to marital status. You can’t win a lawsuit based on a hunch.

Contrary to popular belief, it’s not necessarily illegal to ask candidates
about their marital status in the US. It would, however, be illegal if they
used the answer to this question in a way that influenced their hiring
decision. Frankly, it’s more likely that they were playing the “getting to
know you” game with some poorly-advised small talk.

Before you consider suing, ask yourself what you expect to achieve: If you
want an easy payout, remember that your lawyers will take a significant amount
of anything you receive. If you lose, are you prepared to pay the legal fees
yourself? Your lawyers won’t work for free and suing a company is an easy way
to accumulate huge legal fees.

~~~
jayess
Also consider this: if you do sue, any future potential employer who googles
your name will see the lawsuit. This will dramatically reduce your chances of
getting future jobs.

~~~
byoung2
As a former hiring manager, I can say I have never taken the time to google a
candidate for lawsuits. If you settle out of court before going to trial,
there is usually a nondisclosure and no public record.

~~~
jayess
If you settle, the complaint and other docket records are public record. There
are sites that now publish lots of court records, so just googling a name may
bring up lawsuits filed by that person. You don’t need to google specifically
for court records.

~~~
byoung2
My point was about settling _before_ filing in court. The sequence is this:

    
    
      1. Have your lawyer send a demand letter
      2. Request a case management conference/arbitration
      3. Reach settlement
      4. File in court (filing now public)
      5. Reach settlement (settlement private)
      6. Court judgment (judgment public)
    

The goal is to stop at step 3 where it is not yet public. The company will not
want the filing public because of bad publicity. If it gets this far, they
would rather stop at step 5 than 6.

------
byoung2
Yes you can and should sue. Contact a lawyer and you can get a free
consultation. Many will take your case for free if it is strong enough. Here
are two data points:

When I worked for Kaplan test prep we "auditioned" teachers, asking them to
teach any topic for 5 min. One candidate was great, but had a thick accent.
One of the managers made the mistake of telling him we would not proceed
because of the accent. He sued because of discrimination based on national
origin and Kaplan settled for about $100k.

When I left my old company as director of engineering I recommended one of the
team as my replacement but the CEO declined, saying there were "communication
issues" (the team member is deaf). I told him what the CEO had said and
recommended he sue. They also settled out of court.

~~~
heartbeats
That may be legally permissible, but is it morally acceptable? It just sounds
like thinly veiled blackmail to me.

If you have a thick accent, then that can obviously cause some problems, and
likewise for being deaf.

The only thing this will result in is that companies become more ambiguous;
instead of telling people they were rejected because of their accent, they'll
just not get back to the duds after interviewing them.

~~~
byoung2
Note that Arnold Schwarzenegger has a thick accent. It has not stopped him
from succeeding in movies and politics. And a deaf person can work with
reasonable accommodation (face him when speaking so he can read lips, use
email/chat whenever possible. Note that these are good suggestions for the
hearing as well).

~~~
heartbeats
Thick accent, but not hard to understand, and the fact remains those are not
ideal for a public-facing role. I mean, German, sure, but "Indian tech support
representative" just isn't a good look no matter how you slice it.

Deaf people could work with some accommodation, but why bother? For leadership
roles, "using email/chat whenever possible" is clearly not ideal. You'll get a
worse result and/or pay more for an equally good result.

The proper solution to labour law isn't to favorize the concerned groups, but
to come up with more opaque hiring procedures so as to render them toothless.

~~~
byoung2
I'm feeding the troll here...

 _German, sure, but "Indian tech support representative" just isn't a good
look no matter how you slice it._

That is discriminatory to suggest that one country's accent is more acceptable
than another's.

 _Deaf people could work with some accommodation, but why bother?_

Because in the US that is _literally_ what the Americans with Disabilities Act
requires:
[https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/Accommodations.htm](https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/Accommodations.htm)

~~~
heartbeats
>That is discriminatory to suggest that one country's accent is more
acceptable than another's.

In the abstract sense, maybe. But it still isn't a good look. If I call the
support and hear someone from India, my first impression is that they
outsourced it to the lowest bidder. If I call the support and hear someone
from Germany, my first impression is that it's a German living in America for
whatever reason.

You may not like it, but that's how it is. You can either make your customers
happy or be politically correct. "Indian tech support" has the reputation it
does for a reason, and it's foolish to tarnish your brand with it.

>Because in the US that is literally what the Americans with Disabilities Act
requires:
[https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/Accommodations.htm](https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/Accommodations.htm)

Right, but what's the business case here? If it's only "the potential fines
exceed the potential gain," it seems like there are much easier ways to go at
it. For example, screening out disabled people early in the hiring process.

