Analogy here would be, I’m saying I almost got robbed, robbery is real. You’re coming and saying, “this new law won’t solve your issue, it’s for actual robbery only.”

Awareness is good too, a lot of people’s here have anecdotes from their time in academia (almost all South Asian professors are from higher castes), where it is easier to set up protections.

Good luck gathering any evidence to even fight such a case. You’re only protected insofar as you can prove in the courts that you were discriminated against.

if companies are found liable they will (finally, at least start to) pay attention to the problem. (will it solve it overnight? no, of course not.)

>Can you describe a specific incident in your employment history where you were fired from a job or denied a promotion due to your caste or ancestry?

Just clarifying that discrimination doesn't have to result in being fired or passed over for a promotion to count as discrimination.

Can you give an example please?

IANAL, but basically anything that negatively impacts a protected class and doesn't have a clear business purpose can be argued as discrimination. "Reasonable accommodations" without "undue hardship" are key phrases you will commonly hear as being the expectations for employers. Those accommodations can include stuff like installing ramps for an employee in a wheelchair or granting a new mother time to pump. The employee doesn't have to be fired or denied a promotion, simply making their job or life more difficult is often enough to be considered discrimination.

I don't think you understand the concept of discrimination

I do, but I'm wondering, how far can SB403 go before you start bumping into 1st Amendment issues?

1. If a bunch of co-workers who are vegetarian due to their ancestry choose to exclude me from lunches because I want to eat meat, can I sue them for caste discrimination?

2. If someone makes fun of me because I wear a mark on my forehead, can I sue them for caste discrimination?

All laws need to have bounds that operate within the constraints of the US Constitution. This is why I was limiting the scope of my comments to hiring/firing/promotion related topics. I am sympathetic to social issues like what OP is talking about, but also do not believe that new laws can solve all of them.

Unless you oppose anti discrimination laws in general what possible reason could there be to not add caste to them? (not even a rhetorical there seem to be plenty of people who oppose this but I wasn't able to deduce their reasoning just from the article)

op's comment included work. Unless it's common to measure social acquaintances by seniority.

Also, the existence of such a law should have a chilling effect on this behaviour. Even if it doesn't get rid of it. E.g. presumably HR policies & training will have to be updated to highlight it on pain of exposing employers to legal action.

Changing norms in one place can influence changes in others. Can anyone not believe that Truman's desegregation of the armed forces in the late 1940s helped set the stage white acceptance of the later civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s?

Depending on the actions his coworkers took when they were “offended”, you can have a discrimination case without actually losing your job.

The point sailed right over your head. Before you ask what I mean, I want you to think of a few possibilities first.