Let’s say I’m a landlord and want to keep my building peaceful. It’s not illegal to avoid renting to loud people, as far as I know. But this could mean giving preference to tenants without kids. Even though families with children are not a protected class, there are laws preventing discrimination based on having kids.
Or, imagine I own a bar and prefer employees who naturally produce more alcohol-dehydrogenase (an enzyme that breaks down alcohol), which is common in certain groups. This isn’t directly discriminating based on race, but it could appear that way since the enzyme levels vary by ethnicity.
The issue is that even if you think you’re targeting something neutral, like behavior, it can be a proxy for a protected class. Courts often look at whether your reasoning hides impermissible discrimination.
For example, preferring tenants without children might seem neutral, but it could still fall under discrimination against families. Judges analyze intent and outcomes carefully, especially when strict scrutiny applies, like for race or religion.
Your genetic example is interesting. Even if hiring based on alcohol-dehydrogenase seems rational, it’s unlikely to hold up legally because it indirectly targets race. Laws like the Fair Housing Act make it hard to use such criteria.
Palmer said: @Mackenzie
If extra costs, like for malaria meds, make it financially unviable, wouldn’t that justify the decision?
It would still need to pass strict scrutiny. For example, if hiring was strictly based on a genetic test rather than assumptions about race, and costs like medication were genuinely unavoidable, it might be allowed. But strict scrutiny rarely permits such decisions, even when rational on the surface. Exceptions are very rare and usually prove the rule.
Ellery said: @Mackenzie
If someone discriminates against redheads, could that count as racial discrimination since redheads are more common in certain groups?
It could be considered racial discrimination. For example, if someone has a bias against dark skin, it’s clearly racial. A similar argument could apply to red hair, depending on the context.
This is why judges exist. Laws aren’t like a programming language where the same input always gets the same result. A judge might side with you in one case but reject your argument in another, depending on the circumstances.
It depends on local law. Discrimination can be direct (targeting a protected group outright) or indirect (creating policies that have a discriminatory effect).
For instance, in Canada, a case involved a part-time work program designed to help workers balance home and work. Most participants were women with young children. When the program didn’t count toward pensions, it was ruled discriminatory because it disproportionately affected women, even though the rule wasn’t explicitly about gender.
For employment, some exceptions allow discrimination if it’s a bona fide qualification. For example, a restaurant like Hooters can hire only women because appearance is central to their business model. But for housing, laws like the Fair Housing Act leave less room for such exceptions. You can enforce community rules, like quiet hours, but you can’t deny families housing just because kids are often loud.
@Remy
Does Hooters face any challenges from people who argue that their hiring practices exclude potential employees or customers who aren’t attracted to their staff?
Flynt said: @Remy
Does Hooters face any challenges from people who argue that their hiring practices exclude potential employees or customers who aren’t attracted to their staff?
Businesses aren’t required to create products that appeal to everyone.
The Fair Housing Act has a framework to determine discrimination:
Is the applicant part of a protected class, and did the landlord know this?
Was the applicant qualified to rent?
Was the application rejected?
Did the property remain available afterward?
Even suspicion of a protected status can be enough for discrimination claims. For instance, in a case where a landlord suspected an applicant had AIDS due to medical bills, it was ruled discriminatory because the denial was based on perceived protected status.
Skyler said:
A developer in Brooklyn recently built a property aimed at dual-income couples without kids.
Senior housing developments often have restrictions but are lenient once tenants are already living there. For example, they can’t easily evict someone who gains custody of their grandkids.