Anonymous wrote:What comes around goes around. Sucks to be on the losing end, doesn't it? Now you know how the other side feels.

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Anonymous wrote:Recently there was a change in management at DH's department. The original make up of management was 1 male as the head in charge and then a 2 subordinate female sub managers. The male manager left the department so the females have are now in charge. Since the change the females have started letting go of male subordinates and middle managers and have started hiring all female subordinates and contractors. Is this illegal?

My father ran into the same issue but with race and AAs doing the same thing. Someone sued and put an end to it. My dad was in a federal agency.

The alcoholics hired other alcoholics? Wow!

Anonymous wrote:What comes around goes around. Sucks to be on the losing end, doesn't it? Now you know how the other side feels.

Okay, trolls are into collective guilt. Good to know!

Depends. Are the women hot?

Don't feed the ugly troll.

To answer the original question-no, but it should be.

What comes around goes around. Sucks to be on the losing end, doesn't it? Now you know how the other side feels.

Anonymous wrote:Recently there was a change in management at DH's department. The original make up of management was 1 male as the head in charge and then a 2 subordinate female sub managers. The male manager left the department so the females have are now in charge. Since the change the females have started letting go of male subordinates and middle managers and have started hiring all female subordinates and contractors. Is this illegal?

My father ran into the same issue but with race and AAs doing the same thing. Someone sued and put an end to it. My dad was in a federal agency.

I might be reading too much into your choice of words, but if "middle managers" are being let go and replaced by "contractors," that could be a change of direction in the way the business is organized that has nothing to do with gender. If the entity is a government department and is outsourcing work to contractors, it is not that surprising that the contractors would be women or woman-owned businesses because of contracting preferences based on gender that are legal. Also, how big is the sample? Two, Three, Twenty? It would make a difference. And, especially among young new-hires, you might see more women than men. Women now graduate from college in significantly higher numbers than men.

owner and manager are different. One can have a woman owned business where all the employees are men.

Anonymous wrote:Even if the guise was due to "women owned" businesses and personal relationships?

If personnel or contractors are being hired using "personal relationships" as a justification, then there are all sorts of conflict-of-interest issues going on that go way beyond gender. That should be reported immediately as an ethics violation. As for the "women owned" part, that gets into a whole slew of government contracting regulations that I'm not even going to attempt to try to understand. I can state that there are generally very specific procedures and rules that must be followed though, and that's what gets a lot of people in trouble.

Anonymous wrote:

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not legal to fire someone because of gender, but it will be hard to prove this is gender-based.

A single incident would be very hard to prove, but if there is a clear pattern, it becomes much easier. OP, I would have your husband document the number of people hired, fired, contracted, etc. by gender, both before and after the change in management. One or two instances can be brushed off as a coincidence, but if it is happening more often, the bias should be clear in the numbers.

Even if the guise was due to "women owned" businesses and personal relationships?

Contact the EEOC.

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not legal to fire someone because of gender, but it will be hard to prove this is gender-based.

A single incident would be very hard to prove, but if there is a clear pattern, it becomes much easier. OP, I would have your husband document the number of people hired, fired, contracted, etc. by gender, both before and after the change in management. One or two instances can be brushed off as a coincidence, but if it is happening more often, the bias should be clear in the numbers.

Even if the guise was due to "women owned" businesses and personal relationships?

Anonymous wrote:It's not legal to fire someone because of gender, but it will be hard to prove this is gender-based.

A single incident would be very hard to prove, but if there is a clear pattern, it becomes much easier. OP, I would have your husband document the number of people hired, fired, contracted, etc. by gender, both before and after the change in management. One or two instances can be brushed off as a coincidence, but if it is happening more often, the bias should be clear in the numbers.

It's not legal to fire someone because of gender, but it will be hard to prove this is gender-based.

Recently there was a change in management at DH's department. The original make up of management was 1 male as the head in charge and then a 2 subordinate female sub managers. The male manager left the department so the females have are now in charge. Since the change the females have started letting go of male subordinates and middle managers and have started hiring all female subordinates and contractors. Is this illegal?

My father ran into the same issue but with race and AAs doing the same thing. Someone sued and put an end to it. My dad was in a federal agency.