@LJ wrote:
As independent contractors, we do not have to give up all our rights and others do not get a free pass to discriminate at will. Reading only legislation as written is not enough. You also have to read case law. Halpert v. Manhattan Apartments is a good example.
@dspeakes wrote:
Let's say I want to hire someone to paint my house. One of the people who gives me a bid is 45, well-built, healthy, and looks great in tight jeans. The other is 75 or overweight or black or ugly as a mud fence or coughs constantly or shows 4 inches of butt crack when he bends over to pick up his tool box. Both bid the same price, or maybe the second one bids less, doesn't matter.
It's entirely my choice which i want to hire.
The second one has no claim against me for discriminating based on his age, weight, race, aesthetics, or handicap status. I'm hiring him to paint my house and I can decide who I want to watch on that ladder for the next week.
It doesn't matter that both have been painting for 20 years and do an excellent job and have excellent references. I get to choose. Period.
We are contractors. We're not being discriminated against by our sole source of income as would be the case in an employment situation; we're being discriminated against by one out of 100 or more companies. It's their right, just like it's our right to discriminate against ACE for using Payquicker, or Intellishop for trampling our egos, or GfK for their incessant testing, or CoRI for being cheap, or anyone else for any reason we like.
@ces1948 wrote:
That might be a different outcome if when you advertised your painting job you stated "No one over 65" or No African -Americans" or "No Disabled" will be allowed to bid which is basically what this company is doing.
@ces1948 wrote:
That might be a different outcome if when you advertised your painting job you stated "No one over 65" or No African -Americans" or "No Disabled" will be allowed to bid which is basically what this company is doing.
But what if you said in your ad "No butt cracks!" Dspeaks you really made my day with that image.
On the serious side though, I can sometimes understand the need for a younger person for a particular job but most of the time I do not see the reason and it is sad and annoying. That said, I did call the msc on a job I have avoided for two years since they lowered the age to 50. My son was in town who is 25 and I asked if I could do it if I brought him along. (It's an upscale Beer and Food restaurant). They gave it to me gladly as no one had asked for it and told me I should have asked for that job sooner. There is another shop where the training cut off was 55. When I applied I told them I was only a few months short of that age but I have been doing that job for 3 years now even though I am too old.
A& F take anybody for the shop, it does not require any look.@whiterosie wrote:
How about the scheduler who is tasked with the job of finding shoppers with a certain "look.". I've never asked who the client is but am betting it's Abercrombie and Fitch as the CEO has publicly stated he does not want "ugly people" shopping in his stores.
@dspeakes wrote:
There are also tons of shops that have income or FICO score requirements. Isn't that discrimination too?
@JustJenna wrote:
My guess is that the client wants to ensure its auditors can ambulate, bend, kneel, etc. without trouble, in order to avoid any general liability. Of course, most 67 year olds have no problem with these activities, but some likely do. If you have done these before, I'm sure they are confident you can do all of the above. Thus the waiver.