Ka-pi96 said:
Teeqoz said:
Ka-pi96 said:
That doesn't change the fact that as of yet no evidence has actually been shown...
And no, by my logic that wouldn't be ok. It would of course be wrong to discriminate like that, but it would also be wrong for someone to sue you for it without proof that you are actually discriminating.
Maybe she does have some good evidence to actually back up her claims but until that evidence is made public the safest assumption is that this is just another pathetic cash grab law suit.
|
Please explain to me how you would prove that I was discriminating in said hypothetical "male-only" company? Of course, it's pretty clear that that would be discriminiating, but how would you prove it? I could just say that from the job interviews they seemed like nicer or better candidates than their female competitors, regardless of their previous qualifications and education. You could never prove a damn thing, regardless of how obvious it would be.
|
You couldn't, that's the point. It's entirely possible that someone does form a male only company in a similar way to that, just choosing the people they feel would be the best candidates for the job while genuinely not discriminating against gender at all. So to try and sue someone based just on an assumption when they genuinely may be do nothing wrong? Yeah, that's not right. Oh and of course qualifications aren't the be all end all, as you mention the interviews matter as well, but if someone were to go that route you kind of have to wonder how they got the information about all of the other candidates qualifications don't you?
|
So basically discrimination on the workplace can never be 100% proven therefore we should assume it doesn't exist. Okay, got it!
