I don't know about the USA but in the UK any white person wishing to work at L'Oreal may have a legal case against them. It's against the equality act to even discourage people based on protected characteristics.

These comments are damning and would put any reasonable white person off the job. It immediately presents a hostile working environment against their race. You could qualify the above as valid examples of hate speech if you go for that sort of thing.

You have to be really careful with stuff like this to not get on the wrong side of the law. For example in job roles you want to be careful even writing down that it's a diverse or vibrant workplace because you might be hinting at that you'll be discriminated against if you don't add to the diversity or that the job is for young people.

You can't get it perfect but conscientious workplaces do have a serious commitment to go above and beyond even what's required by law but within reason, mostly. Companies that take equality and anti-discrimination seriously wouldn't go near the kind of person who stands for such things with a barge pole.

On the one hand it's against the principle of equality and non-discrimination that you stick to the specifics that the job requires and nothing else. On the other if enough people can be shown to reasonably perceive something as putting them off then you also have the basis for a lawsuit.

The principle here is that if you put up a sign saying no Irish then it's considered discriminatory even if you didn't mean it. The culture here used to be one of decency so things such as that had real effect. If people saw a sign saying no fishing then they don't fish. If they see a sign on the toilet saying women only and they're a man then they don't go into the toilet. If a sign says danger of death then you expect to be able to take it seriously.

It's a principle of a society heavily reliant on signs to maintain their meaning and utility which is not served by "oh I didn't meant it". You don't want a society where people get into the habit of just ignoring signs.

The bar for implicit statements is far higher than for explicit statements but these's examples certainly qualify. Statements such as white people are the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth are worse than "Whites need not apply".

The only question here is were these statements made in his capacity as a L'Oreal adviser?

I think that's debatable but given his position as a consultant on the "UK Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Board" that directly links his racist hate speech to his role.

I don't know about the USA but in the UK any white person wishing to work at L'Oreal may have a legal case against them. It's against the equality act to even discourage people based on protected characteristics.

These comments are damning and would put any reasonable white person off the job. It immediately presents a hostile working environment against their race. You could qualify the above as valid examples of hate speech if you go for that sort of thing.

You have to be really careful with stuff like this to not get on the wrong side of the law. For example in job roles you want to be careful even writing down that it's a diverse or vibrant workplace because you might be hinting at that you'll be discriminated against if you don't add to the diversity or that the job is for young people.

You can't get it perfect but conscientious workplaces do have a serious commitment to go above and beyond even what's required by law but within reason, mostly. Companies that take equality and anti-discrimination seriously wouldn't go near the kind of person who stands for such things with a barge pole.

On the one hand it's against the principle of equality and non-discrimination that you stick to the specifics that the job requires and nothing else. On the other if enough people can be shown to reasonably perceive something as putting them off then you also have the basis for a lawsuit.

The principle here is that if you put up a sign saying no Irish then it's considered discriminatory even if you didn't mean it. The culture here used to be one of decency so things such as that had real effect. If people saw a sign saying no fishing then they don't fish. If they see a sign on the toilet saying women only and they're a man then they don't go into the toilet.

It's a principle of a society heavily reliant on signs to maintain their meaning and utility which is not served by "oh I didn't meant it". You don't want a society where people get into the habit of just ignoring signs.

The bar for implicit statements is far higher than for explicit statements but these's examples certainly qualify. Statements such as white people are the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth are worse than "Whites need not apply".

The only question here is were these statements made in his capacity as a L'Oreal adviser?

I think that's debatable but given his position as a consultant on the "UK Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Board" that directly links his racist hate speech to his role.

I don't know about the USA but in the UK any white person wishing to work at L'Oreal may have a legal case against them. It's against the equality act to even discourage people based on protected characteristics.

These comments are damning and would put any reasonable white person off the job. It immediately presents a hostile working environment against their race. You could qualify the above as valid examples of hate speech if you go for that sort of thing.

You have to be really careful with stuff like this to not get on the wrong side of the law. For example in job roles you want to be careful even writing down that it's a diverse or vibrant workplace because you might be hinting at that you'll be discriminated against if you don't add to the diversity or that the job is for young people.

You can't get it perfect but conscientious workplaces do have a serious commitment to go above and beyond even what's required by law but within reason, mostly. Companies that take equality and anti-discrimination seriously wouldn't go near the kind of person who stands for such things with a barge pole.

On the one hand it's against the principle of equality and non-discrimination that you stick to the specifics that the job requires and nothing else. On the other if enough people can be shown to reasonably perceive that as putting them off then you also have the basis for a lawsuit.

The principle here is that if you put up a sign saying no Irish then it's considered discriminatory even if you didn't mean it. The culture here used to be one of decency so things such as that had real effect. If people saw a sign saying no fishing then they don't fish. If they see a sign on the toilet saying women only and they're a man then they don't go into the toilet.

It's a principle of a society heavily reliant on signs to maintain their meaning and utility which is not served by "oh I didn't meant it". You don't want a society where people get into the habit of just ignoring signs.

The bar for implicit statements is far higher than for explicit statements but these's examples certainly qualify. Statements such as white people are the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth are worse than "Whites need not apply".

The only question here is were these statements made in his capacity as a L'Oreal adviser?

I think that's debatable but given his position as a consultant on the "UK Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Board" that directly links his racist hate speech to his role.

I don't know about the USA but in the UK any white person wishing to work at L'Oreal may have a legal case against them. It's against the equality act to even discourage people based on protected characteristics.

These comments are damning and would put any reasonable white person off the job. It immediately presents a hostile working environment against their race. You could qualify the above as valid examples of hate speech if you go for that sort of thing.

You have to be really careful with stuff like this to not get on the wrong side of the law. For example in job roles you want to be careful even writing down that it's a diverse or vibrant workplace because you might be hinting at that you'll be discriminated against if you don't add to the diversity or that the job is for young people.

You can't get it perfect but conscientious workplaces do have a serious commitment to go above and beyond even what's required by law but within reason, mostly.

On the one hand it's against the principle of equality and non-discrimination that you stick to the specifics that the job requires and nothing else. On the other if enough people can be shown to reasonably perceive that as putting them off then you also have the basis for a lawsuit.

The principle here is that if you put up a sign saying no Irish then it's considered discriminatory even if you didn't mean it. The culture here used to be one of decency so things such as that had real effect. If people saw a sign saying no fishing then they don't fish. If they see a sign on the toilet saying women only and they're a man then they don't go into the toilet.

It's a principle of a society heavily reliant on signs to maintain their meaning and utility which is not served by "oh I didn't meant it". You don't want a society where people get into the habit of just ignoring signs.

The bar for implicit statements is far higher than for explicit statements but these's examples certainly qualify. Statements such as white people are the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth are worse than "Whites need not apply".

The only question here is were these statements made in his capacity as a L'Oreal adviser?

I think that's debatable but given his position as a consultant on the "UK Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Board" that directly links his racist hate speech to his role.

I don't know about the USA but in the UK any white person wishing to work at L'Oreal may have a legal case against them. It's against the equality act to even discourage people based on protected characteristics.

These comments are damning and would put any reasonable white person off the job. It immediately presents a hostile working environment against their race. You could qualify the above as valid examples of hate speech if you go for that sort of thing. You can't get it perfect but conscientious workplaces do have a serious commitment to go above and beyond even what's required by law but within reason, mostly.

You have to be really careful with stuff like this to not get on the wrong side of the law. For example in job roles you want to be careful even writing down that it's a diverse or vibrant workplace because you might be hinting at that you'll be discriminated against if you don't add to the diversity or that the job is for young people.

On the one hand it's against the principle of equality and non-discrimination that you stick to the specifics that the job requires and nothing else. On the other if enough people can be shown to reasonably perceive that as putting them off then you also have the basis for a lawsuit.

The principle here is that if you put up a sign saying no Irish then it's considered discriminatory even if you didn't mean it. The culture here used to be one of decency so things such as that had real effect. If people saw a sign saying no fishing then they don't fish. If they see a sign on the toilet saying women only and they're a man then they don't go into the toilet.

It's a principle of a society heavily reliant on signs to maintain their meaning and utility which is not served by "oh I didn't meant it". You don't want a society where people get into the habit of just ignoring signs.

The bar for implicit statements is far higher than for explicit statements but these's examples certainly qualify. Statements such as white people are the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth are worse than "Whites need not apply".

The only question here is were these statements made in his capacity as a L'Oreal adviser?

I think that's debatable but given his position as a consultant on the "UK Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Board" that directly links his racist hate speech to his role.