A Black man has filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against a hotel in Detroit, Michigan, alleging the hotel only offered him a job interview after he changed the name on his resume, according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by CNN.

Dwight Jackson filed the lawsuit against the Shinola Hotel on July 3, alleging he was denied a job when he applied as “Dwight Jackson,” but later offered an interview when he changed his name to “John Jebrowski.”

The lawsuit alleges Jackson was denied a job in “violation of Michigan Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.”

  • Sidhean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Theres a difference between lying and not lying. For someone hell-bent on taking the moral high ground, you sure seemed to miss this detail

    • UmeU@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      What lie? We tell all applicants that we aren’t actively hiring but we will reach out to the most recent resumes if/when we need someone.

      There is high demand to work for us, so we have a system for all the people who keep asking for a job.

      We have tried it without a sign on the door as well and we still get a ton of applicants. We just would rather people email the resumes instead of leaving a physical copy.

      • Sidhean@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        In a previous comment, you said you indicated you were “now hiring” as a ploy to collect resumes. later, in a different post, you reveal that you actually say “accepting applications” which, critically, does not directly state that you are hiring. Lying about lying about hiring, I guess. It was an effective tactic to stir shit, but you outright misrepresented your situation.

        • UmeU@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          As I said in a previous comment, I used the phrase ‘now hiring’ for brevity because the point I was making was not particularly about this method of managing the constant inflow of applicants.

          After that inaccuracy proved to cause a half dozen of you to freak out, I specified the full verbiage ‘always accepting resumes, see staff for details’

          I understand the difference but I didn’t foresee that being a catalyst for this detraction from the original point I was trying to make.

          My intention, believe it or not, was not to stir shit. I had a point originally that had nothing to do with our now hiring, excuse me, accepting resumes sign. People here just latched on to that one detail and picked it a part without addressing my original point and the conversation went pear shaped.

            • UmeU@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Not meticulously including every minute detail is not lying. Call it a lie by omission if you want to, but you and everyone else here so far has completely missed the point.

              If I knew my original point was going to be ignored and everyone was going to swoop down on this one detail which was not even relevant to the point I was making, I would have used a completely different example altogether.

              I may not have been specific enough for you on my companies hiring practices, but you have completely ignored my point and everyone here picking apart the sign on the door has strawmaned my point so hard that I haven’t once yet engaged with someone on the original point.