Is this discrimination?

[quincy]

Very eloquently stated Quincy. I am learning a lot from you. There is still hope for me (I think).

Haha. Thanks.

 

[bcr229]

Because you are still currently employed, you have the luxury of taking some time to look for another job. Many employers will prefer an experienced worker like you over someone whose work ethic has not been time-tested.

Especially if the new software is a commercially available product widely used in your industry. Keep your current job just long enough to get trained and proficient with it and then leave.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Well, since you are a minority and so is the individual your boss has promoted, it's not racial discrimination. Since he has allowed other women to train, it's not gender discrimination.

I disagree. Strongly. It is not the case that if the boss is the same race as the employee that the employee automatically doesn't have a race discrimination claim because of the actions of the boss. Even bosses that are the same race as the employee can, and sometimes do, discriminate on race even against persons of their own race because that is what the organization the boss works in encourages or what the boss thinks will help him/her get ahead. The same goes with gender. I've seen women discriminate against other women in the work place by promoting a man with fewer qualifications than a female counterpart. That occurs for much the same reasons: institutional bias or thinking that's what will best help the person advance in the organization. The focus needs to be on the actions of the boss, not the race, gender, etc., of the boss.

 

[cbg]

Fair enough. Thanks Tax.

 

[quincy]

I disagree. Strongly. It is not the case that if the boss is the same race as the employee that the employee automatically doesn't have a race discrimination claim because of the actions of the boss. Even bosses that are the same race as the employee can, and sometimes do, discriminate on race even against persons of their own race because that is what the organization the boss works in encourages or what the boss thinks will help him/her get ahead. The same goes with gender. I've seen women discriminate against other women in the work place by promoting a man with fewer qualifications than a female counterpart. That occurs for much the same reasons: institutional bias or thinking that's what will best help the person advance in the organization. The focus needs to be on the actions of the boss, not the race, gender, etc., of the boss.

While true, the employer’s hiring and promotion actions as described by starbar here do not appear to be illegal discrimination.

starbar can speak with a local employment law attorney to get an up close and personal review of the facts - but I strongly recommend that starbar does not again accuse the employer of discrimination in hiring without the personal review first. Any stated or implied threat of a lawsuit will not sit well with the employer.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

Even bosses that are the same race as the employee can, and sometimes do, discriminate on race even against persons of their own race because that is what the organization the boss works in encourages or what the boss thinks will help him/her get ahead.

The focus needs to be on the actions of the boss, not the race, gender, etc., of the boss.

An organization that encourages illegal discrimination for any reason today would have to be insane to embark on such a suicidal policy. How would scapegoating the actions the boss help justify the company’s policy of illegal discrimination? And yes it is the boss that will be scapegoated. The ambitious boss knowingly engaged in illegal discrimination would not have a job for long where I work.

My employer is extremely community PR sensitive. 20 attorneys in the legal department. Required training after training as a condition of employment on these ever changing labor laws for ALL employees. Yet the focus is always on the boss from above and below even when they are not aware that any illegal discrimination is taking place or has taken place.

 

[starbar]

And, as I should have asked above, what state are you in?

Hi sorry I thought I posted the answer to this last night. I’m 43 in Hawaii.

 

[quincy]

Hi sorry I thought I posted the answer to this last night. I’m 43 in Hawaii.

You did. It was hidden in a quote box, though, so was easily missed.

 

[AlmostThere]

Did the OP indicate her minority? Just because someone promotes a person of minority X, does not mean they are not discriminating against minority Y.

 

[quincy]

Did the OP indicate her minority? Just because someone promotes a person of minority X, does not mean they are not discriminating against minority Y.

No. starbar did not indicate to what minority group s/he belongs/identifies.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

No. starbar did not indicate to what minority group s/he belongs/identifies.

Other than to indicate that she was dark skinned and asked if that made a difference.

 

[AlmostThere]

Other than to indicate that she was dark skinned and asked if that made a difference.

Non-white race does not necessarily dark skinned.

 

[quincy]

Other than to indicate that she was dark skinned and asked if that made a difference.

Right. And being “dark skinned” does not identify a minority group.

What minority group starbar belongs to or identifies with really does not matter here anyway because, based strictly on what has been said by starbar, there does not appear to be any illegal discrimination.

 

[starbar]

Did the OP indicate her minority? Just because someone promotes a person of minority X, does not mean they are not discriminating against minority Y.

Im Native Hawaiian in Hawaii.

 

[starbar]

Other than to indicate that she was dark skinned and asked if that made a difference.

Good Morning, Im native Hawaiian.