• ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    307
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    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?”

    • blaine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      165
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      @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).

      • flyingjake@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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?

        • Tbird83ii@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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.

          • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months 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.

            • davidgro@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

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

              • Darth_Mew@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

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

                • davidgro@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months 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.

        • Bgugi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months 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.

          © Exclusions.–The term “genetic information” shall not include information about the sex or age of any individual.

          • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Are you being sarcastic? Or does being rejected for a job for being ‘too young’ fall under a different discrimination law?
            (Genuine question, i have no idea)

            • ramble81@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              It doesn’t qualify as a type of discrimination that is federally protected. Suprising isn’t it?

        • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months 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.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

        • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          I believe it’s legal in the US to pass someone over for promotion because they’re too young. The only protected class related to age is being over 40 (potentially different in some states).

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months 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

        • Infynis@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months 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

    • AlfredEinstein@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Classic age discrimination.

      Make sure to find a lawyer who is 69 years old and whose license plate is LOL80085.