3,552
06-22-2024, 01:15 PM
This post was last modified 06-22-2024, 01:16 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: spelling
The problem being highlighted here is that there are hiring practices being imposed that are prejudicial, as specifically and directly proscribed in law.
The reality is that it is done often, in every type of business, and it is completely invisible and untouchable because it's simply not stated.
Employers often have an "image" in mind when they want to fill a job vacancy... as long as it is unspoken (thus unofficial,) they can usually hire whomever they like.
Here, in the case of Disney, it was reportedly 'openly stated as policy.' THAT is what theoretically makes it illegal.
The problem is, this is an allegation, candidly offered, by a person 'not under oath,' who may just as easily 'change his testimony' without any repercussions....
This person may or might claim to have been 'seeking' some form of quid-pro-quo for his utterances, say he was lying, or even drunk... since it was recorded 'in secret.' This is the problem with 'allegations'...
All told, this is a hell of a way to "break a story"... Corroborating details should have been researched after the testimony was given... but before it was reported...
The reality is that it is done often, in every type of business, and it is completely invisible and untouchable because it's simply not stated.
Employers often have an "image" in mind when they want to fill a job vacancy... as long as it is unspoken (thus unofficial,) they can usually hire whomever they like.
Here, in the case of Disney, it was reportedly 'openly stated as policy.' THAT is what theoretically makes it illegal.
The problem is, this is an allegation, candidly offered, by a person 'not under oath,' who may just as easily 'change his testimony' without any repercussions....
This person may or might claim to have been 'seeking' some form of quid-pro-quo for his utterances, say he was lying, or even drunk... since it was recorded 'in secret.' This is the problem with 'allegations'...
All told, this is a hell of a way to "break a story"... Corroborating details should have been researched after the testimony was given... but before it was reported...
