Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Statements like this are the problem. You've heard one side's version and have very few facts.

What is an employer to do? Never fire anyone in a protected class?

You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future.

You're defending a company that fired a woman who was 9 months pregnant.

I did not downvote your comment. I downvoted you as a person for your comment.

View on HN

All you know is this person is a woman and was pregnant.

Imagine a man who was recently discovered he had cancer was fired.

That sucks.

But it doesn't make sense to automatically assume the cancer is why he was let go. Sure, maybe the employer is shitty, or maybe he was just a shitty employee.

Well we know what they claimed, which is that they were a pregnant woman who was laid off because of outsourcing but mysteriously she was the only one who lost her job. It may not have been a discriminatory firing, but that would be one hell of a coincidence.

We don't know if what she claims is accurate, true, or even if this company exists. Any comments made are in the context of her statements and assuming they are accurate. Obviously, if she is mistaken then consulting with a lawyer would help reveal that. Telling her to investigate a lawsuit is the correct course given the information we have, and I don't feel any need whatsoever to give the employer a benefit of the doubt. If they are in the clear, then that will be revealed if said employee's lawyer states she has no case.

"Corporate Confidential" by Cynthia Shapiro draws a particular picture how corporate management thinks. If there is any personal detail that would reasonably lead to expect the persons performance to drop in near future and there is a legal way to let go of the person, there is a very strong motivation to do exactly that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com