Roundup: Worker misclassification; Religious accommodation; AI in employment decisions; Reverse discrimination; Discrimination and harm

When workers who should be employees are hired as independent contractors, they don't get benefits, payroll contributions to state unemployment and disability programs, aren't subject to wage/hour laws, and have far fewer civil rights protections against discrimination and harassment. Employment laws generally apply to employees.

This is a great explanation of how worker misclassification can be unfair competition.

Before any legal protections kick in, including those based on religion, there has to be an adverse action by the employer that causes unfair treatment or harm to the employee. Being paid to sit in a training that promotes nondiscrimination against people who are protected by law is not harmful—even if you don't like it or approve.

As Congress considers bills to regulate AI in employment, can we have some actual accountability instead of more processes that don't help anyone? Here are some of the problems and why they won't work.

I almost never disagree with Robin Shea. And I don't really disagree here, except maybe about using a geese idiom in a case about a sex toy business. I also had no idea how to tell goose genders apart and made the mistake of looking it up. Let's just say it's weird.

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court took on the question of how much harm does an employee need to show in a discrimination claim. This is a ridiculous question.

Discrimination is fundamentally dehumanizing because the core message in discrimination is that the decision maker believes in stereotypes or is biased because of factors the employee or candidate has no control over. It is fundamentally unfair and wrong. It is also horrible to experience.