Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submitlogin

Are we reading the same text?

> Of course, one downside is that it’s not ideal for people with families. Some of the best people I’ve ever worked with have kids, and unfortunately wouldn’t be able to do this.

I could only imagine the outrage if Wal-Mart said "this job requires consistent attendance, so it's not ideal for pregnant people." Saying "this job is not ideal for" a protected category is a strange decision. I didn't write the laws, and you might very well be correct that it's not a job for people with families, but to come right out in the job advertisement and say they're not invited? I would not want to be your lawyer.




Fair point; I edited it to say this:

> Of course, one downside is that it’s not ideal for everyone. Some of the best people I’ve ever worked with wouldn't want to or be able to travel. We’ll get around this eventually by hiring remote employees or setting up a SF office.

It conveys what I meant to say, without implying something I didn't.

-----


People with children ("familial status") is a federally protected housing class. I don't think it's a protected employment class. Pregnancy is, as is gender.

In California, marital status is also protected.

IANAL of course.

-----




Applications are open for YC Summer 2015

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: