> What do you mean by one juror or two? My point is regarding when juries are legally allowed to make an intent determination. It often does not require a specific expression of intent and instead can be inferred from activities that indicate things like reckless behavior and disregard for the potential that they do the unlawful thing.
The point is the defense can show loads of documents about how working together increases efficiency, how they are streamlining units and they plaintiff has to prove they were targeted as an ex-DEI hire and even though there is just hunch. I don’t know about other countries but that’s how it works in US.
Worker protection here is very weak. There are protected categories but they’d have the burden of proof they were let go specifically because of their protected category.
> I don't think that you appreciate the typical legal procedure is that before any fact-question is presented to the jury, parties move based upon the available evidence, whether or not there is sufficient facts presented to warrant a fact-decider's decision
Exactly, moreover jurors would be instructed to make up their mind based on the presented evidence. One side will have papers and the other will have read-between-lines hunches. Sure jurors can still do whatever but unless they’re all activist jurors they will just go with whatever side is more convincing and the evidence they have been presented.
>The point is the defense can show loads of documents about how working together increases efficiency, how they are streamlining units and they plaintiff has to prove they were targeted as an ex-DEI hire and even though there is just hunch. I don’t know about other countries but that’s how it works in US.
They can and a jury can still think that was not the actual reason someone was fired.
>Worker protection here is very weak. There are protected categories but they’d have the burden of proof they were let go specifically because of their protected category.
You're just making things up.
>Exactly, moreover jurors would be instructed to make up their mind based on the presented evidence. One side will have papers and the other will have read-between-lines hunches. Sure jurors can still do whatever but unless they’re all activist jurors they will just go with whatever side is more convincing and the evidence they have been presented.
You're mistaking plausibility with convincingness.
Sounds like you can't provide any response to that. Hopefully you've heard about "at will" before and how that works in US. So far it sounds like you're making stuff up or are talking about some other country or region.
> You're mistaking plausibility with convincingness.
That's exactly what you're confusing. Some juries can be convinced but doesn't mean that it's a winnable strategy. How many people are laid off across the US and how feasible is for them to bring up lawsuits and how many would be won with the current laws?
The only exception to this perhaps are the ADA laws, where one can show that the workplace has not accommodated a worker properly. (The ramp is not there / the elevator doesn't have the buttons at the correct height etc). But here we're talking about DEI initiatives not ADA.
> They can and a jury can still think that was not the actual reason someone was fired.
Here you're again mistaking plausibility with convincingness. Just because it's plausible something could have happened, say a person was "managed out" because they were DEI hire, without some evidence convincing the majority of the jury won't work, based on a hunch. That's just not how it works. We can discuss some fantasy world where all the citizens are righteous activists and fight back against the system or the how it usually works out in the real world.
>Sounds like you can't provide any response to that. Hopefully you've heard about "at will" before and how that works in US. So far it sounds like you're making stuff up or are talking about some other country or region.
A company's right to terminate you is not the same thing as their plausible defense in a wrongful termination lawsuit. That you're bringing up other countries is even more confusing. Nothing I said is related to other countries as I do not live in other countries, I have not been employed in other countries, and I do not practice law in other countries.
>The only exception to this perhaps are the ADA laws, where one can show that the workplace has not accommodated a worker properly. (The ramp is not there / the elevator doesn't have the buttons at the correct height etc). But here we're talking about DEI initiatives not ADA.
I'm not talking about DEI. I never mentioned DEI. Are you confused?
>That's exactly what you're confusing. Some juries can be convinced but doesn't mean that it's a winnable strategy. How many people are laid off across the US and how feasible is for them to bring up lawsuits and how many would be won with the current laws?
What does any of that have to do with my point? I didn't say it was common. I didn't say it was an automatic win whenever anyone is fired. These are all strawman arguments. I was just rebutting the very simple point that was made about direct evidence for a state of mind, which is something that IS true about the US legal system, and certainly exists beyond the concept of employment law.
You have completely twisted this around to being about DEI, and trying to rebut the idea that these lawsuits are constantly won at a loss to these companies. None of that was said by me nor was it even suggested by me.
The point is the defense can show loads of documents about how working together increases efficiency, how they are streamlining units and they plaintiff has to prove they were targeted as an ex-DEI hire and even though there is just hunch. I don’t know about other countries but that’s how it works in US.
Worker protection here is very weak. There are protected categories but they’d have the burden of proof they were let go specifically because of their protected category.
> I don't think that you appreciate the typical legal procedure is that before any fact-question is presented to the jury, parties move based upon the available evidence, whether or not there is sufficient facts presented to warrant a fact-decider's decision
Exactly, moreover jurors would be instructed to make up their mind based on the presented evidence. One side will have papers and the other will have read-between-lines hunches. Sure jurors can still do whatever but unless they’re all activist jurors they will just go with whatever side is more convincing and the evidence they have been presented.