• ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is probably a slam dunk (minor) discrimination lawsuit. Your circumstances of birth, including the date, are not something you can be judged for.

    Follow up with your ID or Birth certificate and ask “Excuse me?”

    • blaine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @ocassionallyaduck

      @The_Picard_Maneuver

      Not true in the US. They could ban anyone born in the entire month of April, or anyone who “looks like a pot smoker” if they wanted to.

      Applicants, employees and former employees are ONLY protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).

      • flyingjake@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wonder if an argument could be made that birthdate is a component of your genetic information including family medical history? It is also potentially age discrimination?

        • Tbird83ii@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Technically this is discrimination based on age.

          They were born 4/20/(year). You could make an argument they are discriminating all people exactly (X) years, 4 months, and 2 days old.

          • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah we typically thing age discrimination is saying we only hire people between 20-40y/o but it would also cover it if you said “I won’t hire someone 21 years old only” and still applies to banning someone 21.5 years old. And 21 years and 6 months and 27 days old.

            Same applies if I ban anyone with an age divisible by 3. It’s a group of people, but if their age has anything to do with why you aren’t hiring them then I’d say this applies.

          • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are you being sarcastic? Or does being rejected for a job for being ‘too young’ fall under a different discrimination law?
            (Genuine question, i have no idea)

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It wouldn’t get anywhere in the US. Age is the closest protected class, but only applies to over 40 in the US. Discrimination based on month and day of birth isn’t actually illegal.

      • Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I honestly think there’s a gray area here and it’s worth talking to a lawyer if anything. There are certainly some protections for peoples under 40. Being denied a promotion because you’re “too young” is certainly a protection. The catch is you have to prove it.

        This case is easy to prove though if there are any laws over this.

        Edit: but now that I think about it, this is only really a protection if you’re already hired at the place. If you just slam the door on people before they can get in, discrimination seems to be legal.