Talk:Employment discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Bearian 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation for Addition of New Section: Not Only Intentional Discrimination is Illegal

I added this section to the entry on employment discrimination because although the overview was mostly comprehensive in describing the area of law, it omitted a major aspect: the fact that employers cannot use practices that have a discriminatory impact, even if the practice is neutral and the employer has no intent to discriminate. Over the past two decades, disparate impact lawsuits have become an important way for employees to fight practices that hurt them (even unintentionally) and for employers to become aware of the potentially harmful effects of their business practices. (Posted by [[User:HLS Group 3]]}

[edit] reorganising

This article started out very focused on Employment discrimination law in the United States. I definitely agree that it needs to be expanded to include other countries. But given the large amount of information about United States law, would it be best to move that to its own article and have this give more of a summary of the issue? Perhaps keep the sections on unintentional discrimination and protected categories, and combine the other two into a "law" section, with links to articles on different countries's laws? Opine. --Alynna 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and completely reorganised the article and moved the US and UK sections to their own articles. What do people think? Does this look OK? --Alynna 00:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] can prohibit?

The article asserts that laws "can prohibit discrimination on the basis of..." -- I don't think making a list of all the possible protected categories we can think of at the moment is really necessary - the law can prohibit discrimination on any grounds it sees fit. Maybe that sentence needs to be rephrased or contextualized somehow? I'm not sure what exactly is appropriate. Cheeser1 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the "can" to "often"; is that better? --Alynna 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes alot more sense, I'm not sure why that didn't come to mind for me, but it did for you and now it reads sensibly. Thanks. Also, sorry for posting at the top of the page, I'm really out of it today. :) Cheeser1 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)