
Ask HN: Is hiring without a 'remote possible' option discriminatory? - aloukissas
There are many people that cannot in the foreseeable future be in a public space (i.e. an office), because they&#x27;re in high-risk categories for COVID-19. For example, immunocompromised people, pregnant females, etc. But also there are others who are just not comfortable with the possibility of contracting the virus, irrespective of their risk group. At least not before a provenly working vaccine is available.<p>In this light, is it a discriminatory hiring policy (maybe not according to local laws, but in the broader sense) when a company requires in-office presence for their candidates?
======
ptcrash
Yes, it is discriminatory. But discrimination isn't illegal; discrimination
against protected classes is. Examples of things hiring personnel can
discriminate based on include political views, your weight, your sexuality (at
leas here Texas), credit history, any bankruptcies, and unemployment.

~~~
ptcrash
I'd like to just point out that I stated sexual orientation was not a
protected class less than 24 hours before SCOTUS made their ruling. It's funny
how suddenly things can change.

------
kf
I think so, except when it’s a position that does actually require one to be
in a lab or manufacturing plant or similar. It will take a lawsuit to actually
establish this but I imagine a law firm would take a case like this on
contingency against a big company.

~~~
giantg2
Agree, it all comes down to whether offering remote options is considered
"reasonable accomodations". This would probably be considered reasonable if
the company has the infrastructure or could easily afford it. Small companies
may not be required to provide this option if they don't have the
infrastructure and can't easily afford it.

------
hkarthik
Likely so.

Also once there is a coronavirus vaccine, it will likely be considered
discriminatory to require vaccination as a condition of employment in order to
enter a company office.

