Housing discrimination

[creo1e]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Hampshire
I work for an employer who provides housing for it's employees based on years of service and now is changing it to add if there are 2 persons in the same household who work for the company to have their time added together to bump them past people that only have one employee working for the company. Example: Employee A has been working for 13 years and employee B and C are married and have been working for 7 years each. The housing is based on work in the dormitory and so employee A has been working in the dormitory for 13 years and employees B and C have only been in the same dorm for 7 years. A new better house has been offered to the employees B and C over that of employee A with the only difference between their employment is employee A does not work for the company so the employer has decided to give the nicer new housing to employees B and C because they say they are adding their time together. Isn't this discrimination?

 

[TigerD]

No.

DC

**************..

 

[tranquility]

It hardly seems as though they intended to discriminate for a prohibited reason. Absent a disparate impact claim (aka statistics), this hardly seems illegal.

 

[Zigner]

Sure it is. It's definitely discrimination. Just as surely as my choice in clothing this morning was discrimination.


It is not ILLEGAL discrimination. Not all discrimination is illegal. In fact, most is not.


There is nothing illegal going on for the OP.

 

[TigerD]

Sure it is. It's definitely discrimination. Just as surely as my choice in clothing this morning was discrimination.


It is not ILLEGAL discrimination. Not all discrimination is illegal. In fact, most is not.


There is nothing illegal going on for the OP.

Seems more like an employee benefit plan that doesn't discriminate against married employees to me.

DC

 

[creo1e]

so according to everyone's logic it is ok for an employer to give benefits based on what how they feel rather than based on merit. If all other things are equal with this same logic someone can get a bonus of $10000 versus a bonus of $5000 just because they like someone more. this is not necessarily discrimination but inequality in the workplace. if this is an educational institution that receives federal funding does this make a difference? I find that if all things are equal with the exception of 2 employees versus 1 employee for the same benefit there should be some legal standing that the one employee or a single employee might have.

 

[FlyingRon]

so according to everyone's logic it is ok for an employer to give benefits based on what how they feel rather than based on merit. If all other things are equal with this same logic someone can get a bonus of $10000 versus a bonus of $5000 just because they like someone more. this is not necessarily discrimination but inequality in the workplace. if this is an educational institution that receives federal funding does this make a difference? I find that if all things are equal with the exception of 2 employees versus 1 employee for the same benefit there should be some legal standing that the one employee or a single employee might have.

In most states, including New Hampshire (in fact California is one of the few I know of to the contrary), the answer to that question is YES. They are free to issue perks based on things other than merit. As long as they aren't discriminating based on one of the protected classes they can. No it makes no difference if they get some support from the feds. In fact, your arguments are spurious. Despite your protestations, married couples where both are employees allowing to pool like this is still based on merit, just a different computation of merit than would be favorable to you.

 

[Zigner]

so according to everyone's logic it is ok for an employer to give benefits based on what how they feel rather than based on merit. If all other things are equal with this same logic someone can get a bonus of $10000 versus a bonus of $5000 just because they like someone more.

Yep, precisely. So long as the decision is not based on a protected characteristic.

this is not necessarily discrimination but inequality in the workplace.

Yes

if this is an educational institution that receives federal funding does this make a difference? I find that if all things are equal with the exception of 2 employees versus 1 employee for the same benefit there should be some legal standing that the one employee or a single employee might have.

What do you think has happened that is illegal?

 

[justalayman]

creo1e;3171041]so according to everyone's logic it is ok for an employer to give benefits based on what how they feel rather than based on merit. If all other things are equal with this same logic someone can get a bonus of $10000 versus a bonus of $5000 just because they like someone more.

but that is not the basis of the determination in your question. It is based on real numbers, not just personal feelings.

 

[eerelations]

so according to everyone's logic it is ok for an employer to give benefits based on what how they feel rather than based on merit. If all other things are equal with this same logic someone can get a bonus of $10000 versus a bonus of $5000 just because they like someone more. this is not necessarily discrimination but inequality in the workplace. if this is an educational institution that receives federal funding does this make a difference? I find that if all things are equal with the exception of 2 employees versus 1 employee for the same benefit there should be some legal standing that the one employee or a single employee might have.

Again, this is not illegal discrimination. This means no laws are being broken. Which means you have no legal recourse.

(And note we are not saying whether this is "ok" or not, we're just saying there are no laws out there that prohibit this.)

 

[creo1e]

In most states, including New Hampshire (in fact California is one of the few I know of to the contrary), the answer to that question is YES. They are free to issue perks based on things other than merit. As long as they aren't discriminating based on one of the protected classes they can. No it makes no difference if they get some support from the feds. In fact, your arguments are spurious. Despite your protestations, married couples where both are employees allowing to pool like this is still based on merit, just a different computation of merit than would be favorable to you.[/QUOT

This sounds right except for the fact that my arguments might seem spurious to you as I have not disclosed the whole story so for you to make that assumption would be rather precipitant. What happens if there is different computations in different cases as this has not played out fully yet and it will be interesting to see what happens. I see much of the advice given here is really not based on fact but rather opinions some educated and some not. At least you attempted to bring some merit to your argument.

 

[Zigner]

This sounds right except for the fact that my arguments might seem spurious to you as I have not disclosed the whole story so for you to make that assumption would be rather precipitant. What happens if there is different computations in different cases as this has not played out fully yet and it will be interesting to see what happens. I see much of the advice given here is really not based on fact but rather opinions some educated and some not. At least you attempted to bring some merit to your argument.

Ahh, the old "tell a little bit of the story and then get mad when people respond only based on what they have been told" trick. You got us!

 

[Silverplum]

This sounds right except for the fact that my arguments might seem spurious to you as I have not disclosed the whole story so for you to make that assumption would be rather precipitant. What happens if there is different computations in different cases as this has not played out fully yet and it will be interesting to see what happens. I see much of the advice given here is really not based on fact but rather opinions some educated and some not. At least you attempted to bring some merit to your argument.

I see you have given some of the information (as you just wrote) and are now complaining that the answers are not as full or "educated" as they might have been -- if you had provided all of the information in the beginning.

 

[tranquility]

This sounds right except for the fact that my arguments might seem spurious to you as I have not disclosed the whole story so for you to make that assumption would be rather precipitant. What happens if there is different computations in different cases as this has not played out fully yet and it will be interesting to see what happens. I see much of the advice given here is really not based on fact but rather opinions some educated and some not. At least you attempted to bring some merit to your argument.

If that whole story includes discriminating against an employee because of:
Race or Color
National Origin
Sex
Religion
Age
Disability
Pregnancy
Sexual orientation (at least in New Hampshire)

then, you might have something. But, even if it just statistically affected one of those groups (rather then there being proof such a group was discriminated against purposefully) the company will say they had a valid business reason of giving better housing to those who have more at stake with the company. (Or, however they want to word it.)

At first, I thought, maybe, a requirement to be married for the benefit might discriminate against a sexual orientation issue. But, it's New Hampshire! Sexual orientation is not a hindrance to being married.

So, secret holder of facts, what characteristic is being discriminated against?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Sounds like you owe your soul to the company store.