I can sue you, if I wanted. It doesn't mean you're guilty of wrongdoing. It means I'm exercising my right to use the legal process to resolve conflict.
I really don't see how you think that's the problem.
PS: The UNNAMED employer was really vilified here. Damn them!
If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place.
This isn't hypothetical. This is actually happening.
I can confirm this anecdotally with my father's factory. Even with documented piece rates, documented averages from all employees, and having a very racially and gender positive hiring policy, it became a running issue of having to spend time in court every time someone was fired for cause. Over a 15 year span they were sued 18 times and lost 'none' of them because they were very strict in documenting everything.
While not a the 'major' factor, it was a factor in reducing the size of the company and specializing rather than growing it and working on more generic product lines. by reducing the size of the company they were able to reduce the need to hire and plan for being sued at least once a year by someone in a protected class that decided that they had been discriminated against.
Based on conversations with him and others in similar positions this is not uncommon.
> If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place.
The solution is to make them also think that people in these classes are equally likely to sue if not hired, and particularly likely to win if the employer is, in fact, discriminating against them in hiring.
I really don't see how you think that's the problem.
PS: The UNNAMED employer was really vilified here. Damn them!