and due to the shortage of profits last year is forced to cut one loose.

He turns toward the first employee, a 74 year old man. The man says "Fire me pal, and you won't see the old-age lawsuit before it knocks you on your ass."

He turns toward the second employee, a 35 year old black man, who says "can't fire protected minorities, brotha."

He turns toward the third employee, a 28 year old woman, who says "the womens rights organizations will stick their foot so far up your ass, you'll taste shoe for a week."

They all turn towards the 4th employee, a healthy, white, 27 year old male. The last employee sheepishly stammers "I...I think I might be gay...."




BUH-DUM-TSSS

EDIT: so will the easily butt-hurt please reveal themselves after not being able to take a joke?

LOL oh I get it the best working employee is the majority so has no one to back him so the employeer has to get rid of his best employee! Equality at it's best!

+1

I enjoyed the content mocking the ultra privileged vs the discriminated against (Normal people).

Any labor lawyers around? In at-will work states where people can be fired for literally anything short of a few enumerated discrimination issues, does the presumption of innocence not apply to employers firing employees? I mean does a man have to prove he was fired because of his age or does the employer have to prove it wasn't age the man was fired for?

The destruction of the middle class saddens me.

Not sure what your bold underline means.

None of them would have an actual case if the boss selected who got fired by a lottery.

edit: I like how the black man said "brotha."

What do you think, derpmaster 3000?

1. It doesn't matter whether it's an at-will work state, since federal law governs labor discrimination.
2. Federal law does not protect employees on the basis of sexual orientation (some states do, however.)
3. State labor law follows federal labor laws around like a sick puppy, because they were modeled after the federal laws and they adopt developments and changes in federal law wherever they can.
4. The following is the test which must be proven in an action for adverse employment action under Title VII:

a. The employee must demonstrate an adverse action occurred, that he is part of a protected class, that he was performing satisfactorily (if fired) / or qualified (for hiring, promotions, etc.), and that there was a causal link between the adverse action complained of and the employee's status as part of the protected class.
b. The employer then has the opportunity to offer evidence showing there existed a legitimate business reason for the adverse action (i.e., arguing there was no causal link). The employer need not show that this was the actual reason for the adverse action.
c. The employee may then offer evidence showing that the separate business reason was merely pretextual.

In summation, this joke is pretty stupid.

Judging from the things I've heard come out of HR, my thoughts differed from reality.

I have a hard time understanding how any company is ever successfully prosecuted for discrimination since intent is hard to prove considering one's satisfactory performance does not entitle him to continued employment. Since I can fire someone for having stinky breath on a Tuesday, how could I ever be successfully prosecuted for discrimination if that's the reason I give?

I ask these questions legitimately, not rhetorically, dickbag 4000.

You don't "prosecute" employers for discrimination derpmaster 5000

"Intent" is not a required element to prove employment discrimination, nobody cares.