@
StygianKohlrabi It doesn't really matter if there's no such thing, it's about what the recruiter thinks with unconscious biases. That's the bottom line. On average white people get called in at a larger percent than others. There's such thing as unconscious bias and you can have that towards names when that's the first thing a recruiter sees.
Related back to my original post, I still fail to see how 100% of all jobs are taken by immigrants if recruiters also have unconscious biases if they are untrained to recognize them in the first place. Surely 100% of jobs can't statistically be taken if this were true. My main point is that it is irrational to say that 100% of jobs are taken away from white people, it's not statistically true at all.
https://www.inc.com/bruce-crumley/heres-exactly-where-racial-bias-in-hiring-persists-and-how-businesses-can-address-it.html....
also, there was a black guy who was kicked out of a Walmart who received millions in compensation but he didn't have solid proof. . it was more circumstantial
I looked this up and it's not circumstantial in the least, the victim deserved that money. Walmart employed a person who was willfully stealing from them (he got terminated way later for mishandling $35 dollars of Walmart's property.)
The police claimed that the perpetrator made SO many false reports to the police that they even said themselves in court that they were tired of him filing false police reports on people. It wasn't his first go around. That's why they didn't arrest the victim in the first place, the man who harassed this person was constantly doing stuff to other people previously. It's not like the victim just made the whole thing up, the victim couldn't have possibly known that the accuser was doing that to other people and the police report of the perpetrator even said that they had faced other false police reports of the same nature by this person. You can't tell me that the perpetrator was telling the truth over the victim if there's already an established routine behavior.
The victim's story adds up to what the perpetrators other victims also faced and the victim of this recent one couldn't have possibly known that. Therefore they're telling the truth.
WHY Walmart was sued in the first place was down to pure negligence for not investigating his false police reports previously and not supervising him which made them responsible for his behavior, that's why they were sued. He had done this many times before and was stealing himself but Walmart failed to act appropriately and made it unsafe for the person being accused. They likely would have never been sued if they just acted appropriately after the first dozen false police reports.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22189430/oregon-walmart-racial-profiling-lawsuit.pdf
Walmart was negligent in one or more of the following ways, and such
negligence was a cause of all damage alleged in the first claim for relief:
1) In retaining Williams in a loss prevention capacity; and
2) In failing to supervise Williams so as to prevent foreseeable
violations of customers’ rights by Williams.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/us/black-customer-racial-profiling-walmart/index.htmlIn a deposition clip given to CNN by Mangum’s attorney, Multnomah County Sheriff’s Shift Cmdr. Sgt. Bryan White said he and deputies on his shift had become “extremely frustrated with a pattern of behavior that they had identified” in the employee calling 911 to report “dangerous active situations such as customers physically assaulting him or loss prevention employees or other Walmart employees while trying to steal and then the deputies determining that that never actually happened.”
