Maybe they didn't promote him because he's the kind of guy who would file this lawsuit
What, a guy who wants things to be fair?
I don't know. How would you feel if you were denied a job or position because of your sex?
Performance and workplace attitude play a seriously significant role in career advancement.
Despite the fact that the company said "mass underrepresentation of women" was considered in the promotion, there is every chance she had a better attitude and achieved better results in her previous role. The qualifications take a backseat at that point.
Fair enough, I've read the article more closely and it does seem like gender played a role. 0.25% sounded like a small margin to me, small enough that other factors e.g. personality traits may dominate, but if she was treated preferentially over the other male candidates too -- "discernible pattern, according to which [Zechner] was treated more favourably than the other candidates from the beginning," -- then this is pretty blatant sexism.
I think that's grasping for straws a little, might be true though. But as you say, that's all out the window when you start playing the game of discrimination-politics and quotas.
Not really, because 99% of companies have such equal gender representations programs in place. The fact that it was 'considered' was probably done in line with standard corporate hiring and promotion practice.
And not to be a nit-picky devil's advocate, but who's to say that that 0.25% higher "qualification" value didn't have sexism in play, itself?
Well the courts obviously agreed with him, he ended up with a decent settlement.
equality quotas are bullshit and employees should always be judged by merit alone and not by things they can't even change about them.
I'm glad he won and I hope this sets a precedent.
Bures defended her decision in a statement to the press. She said the appointment was “carried out according to the procedure prescribed by law,” but admitted that the “mass underrepresentation of women" played a role in the decision-making process. "I hope the current decision doesn't call into the question the principle of encouraging the promotion of women," she added.
It seems pretty clear it was done for gender quota reasons.
Quotas in general have seemed to reach the point where they are more detrimental. I think they can be necessary, but when they start giving someone an unfair advantage is when they should end.
If a woman was also doing this lawsuit her personality wouldn't have been thrown into question.
Well, maybe not? I guess? Doesn't make what I said wrong though does it. I was simply throwing out a reason why someone more 'qualified' may not be the person promoted to the more senior position. It works like that in pretty much every company ever.
The answer to racism and sexism is not more racism and sexism going in the other direction. Two wrongs do not make a right.
If the company gave one person a job over another person based on their gender that's sexism, don't care who was who or what way round it what who who had the biggest assortment of letters before their name.
If it was just a simple "we liked the other candidate better" then fine, it it was a case of "they have demonstrated use of skills we need despite no formal qualifications" then fine.
Because the court found in favour of the man, it leads me to think that the company was more than a little biased with regards to gender in this case. Either that or were dumb enough to try and defend the notion of gender discrimination for good reasons as opposed to just saying "we didn't discriminate based on gender."
Yeah but the point is that you wouldn't have even thought to make that point if it was a woman winning a discrimination suit, plus:
The court found a "discernible pattern, according to which [Zechner] was treated more favourably than the other candidates from the beginning," it said in the ruling, quoted in AFP.
When we have a court ruling that has determined the process was unfair from the start, and the hiring manager themselves admits that "under-representation of women" was a factor.. The whole "maybe she was just a better people-person" doesn't really apply.
I recall reading, though I cannot find the source, that the company had an "objective" scoring method used to determine who should receive the promotion. The man scored higher than the woman, but the woman was offered the role.
If that's the case, it seems like a completely cut and dry case.
Well you're preaching to the choir really, I wouldn't consider myself to be whatever bullshit brand of neoliberal it is that pushes fervently for corporate equality. I just assumed, probably wrongly, that the original poster was claiming it was unfair that someone more qualified wouldn't necessarily be promoted. Long day sorry boys.
Surprising considering how difficult discrimination typically is to prove against a company that knows how to cover their ass. It feels like they can get away with anything by just building a solid defence. Good on him.
I'm pretty sure that's also implied by them having a precisely quantified score in the first place.
Normally that's used to take the human factor (i.e. sexism or other discriminatory treatment) out of the occasion.
Exams are an inherently noisy measurement, and I doubt the uncertainty is less than 0.25% -- in which case, the test failed to distinguish between the two of them.
Not trying to claim sexism didn't play a role (it's pretty clear, based on the article and what others have posted, that it did), but just playing devil's advocate to your assertion.
wow. beautiful. james damore died for this. let his tears of joy fall from heaven. a cleansing rain to wash away the libtards. wow.
i don't know, ask all the countless women it's happened to
not that i'm condoning this, but really
Okay so we've established that using sex to determine hiring is bad.
yes i agree, and that wasn't even my point. i was trying to illustrate that people hardly ever get so vocal about it like (like in n this thread, for example) despite it having happened to women for literal decades in the modern workplace.
coming out and saying that would have been more effective than being snarky. besides, i think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone for gender-related reasons, and if there were a thread about a woman winning a sexual discrimination lawsuit i would be just as content to think that that is also good and to lurk there a while. just because somebody supports one doesn't mean that they wouldn't support the other.
Yeah, people are generally more outraged by injustices that apply to them personally, for obvious reasons. What are you trying to prove?
Alsp there are large scale, international movements and organizations dedicated to helping women who have been affected by it and preventing future women from facing it. So I'd say people are pretty vocal about it.
Because when the conversation is centered almost entirely around one group's issues, with very little attention being drawn to the fact that another group even has issues, people tend to amplify that smaller group.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
