If it's the same as UK law, it's that Grover didn't directly say "no trans people" but by saying "no male-born people" she indirectly excluded TIMs.
For e.g. in UK law, suppose (for the sake of argument) women on average earn 25,000 pa and men on average earn 32, 000pa.
A job advert saying "no women" would be direct discrimination.
A job advert which said "we're looking for the sort of high flyer who already earns at least 35K" would be indirect discrimination because it ruled out proportionately more women than men.
(This was the example I was given in some work training on writing job ads.)
The surprising thing in a way is that the direct discrimination case was thrown out, given the judge found in favour of indirect discrimination. Sal's been pretty upfront that she wants to exclude TIMs.
Crowd funding for the appeal time, I suppose.
Tovarich EmmyNoether /
npub1tm…6dsh9
2024-08-23 07:34:47
in reply to nevent1q…59q3
Author Public Key
npub1tmn02fw5zea73zu2dtnwz3c8v56xy6xs6q0glvupy3jevfzem2psv6dsh9Published at
2024-08-23 07:34:47Event JSON
{
"id": "089f7285033e9fd613e9f8957a45d313711ebbc6dbcc96b03a915f3709b37bdc",
"pubkey": "5ee6f525d4167be88b8a6ae6e1470765346268d0d01e8fb3812465962459da83",
"created_at": 1724398487,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"68ba786bb8daeb4eb85147ad11ef3c6f0cdf6b44faf8b811cf46a23af3290e57"
],
[
"e",
"7c3bd33e33a14f27f4305a6eee6b977656e119b8a883aefd281fa9b242c244c9",
"",
"root",
"68ba786bb8daeb4eb85147ad11ef3c6f0cdf6b44faf8b811cf46a23af3290e57"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://spinster.xyz/objects/071eb6f0-977f-43e0-b0e7-9d4935363d08",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://spinster.xyz/objects/071eb6f0-977f-43e0-b0e7-9d4935363d08",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "If it's the same as UK law, it's that Grover didn't directly say \"no trans people\" but by saying \"no male-born people\" she indirectly excluded TIMs.\n\nFor e.g. in UK law, suppose (for the sake of argument) women on average earn 25,000 pa and men on average earn 32, 000pa.\n\nA job advert saying \"no women\" would be direct discrimination.\n\nA job advert which said \"we're looking for the sort of high flyer who already earns at least 35K\" would be indirect discrimination because it ruled out proportionately more women than men.\n\n(This was the example I was given in some work training on writing job ads.)\n\nThe surprising thing in a way is that the direct discrimination case was thrown out, given the judge found in favour of indirect discrimination. Sal's been pretty upfront that she wants to exclude TIMs.\n\nCrowd funding for the appeal time, I suppose.",
"sig": "430009e165096478b0541c93ae6078b9c773043895ac0e12c3d9ef82ef4b8aab26ffce701227a917888bab54934c4e464ef99eb653852d300c7a7b8f341c641b"
}