Discover the US City with the Largest Brazilian Community

When asked if Jakub had reached his goals, Jakub was like, "Nah, fam." 

He was spilling the tea about direct discrimination. Jakub told me he got the boot, like he's been selected for redundancy. He hadn't been hit up beforehand with any letters or briefing about the whole redundancy situation. His line manager gave him the scorecard on the 10th January 2013, like right before he clocked out. There was like no written statement sent to him, like explaining why he got picked for redundancy. SMH. He was like:

When I asked for an explanation, I was like, "Bruh, what's the tea?" But they hit me with all these technical jargon that was straight up Greek to me. SMH. OMG, my boss hit me up to go to a meeting with the squad in, like, less than 20 hours. So random, right? I didn't have enough time to hit up the legal experts for some redundancy advice, fam. OMG, even after the meeting the next day, the team totally ghosted me about my right to appeal the decision. SMH. Lack of heads up and proper heads up got some peeps shook. Jakub was like, "Yo, if the employees don't get a heads up about the redundancy, it's gonna be so unfair to just let them go." A bias redundancy selection criterion and unfair dismissal is, like, another big issue that's got some peeps concerned. Some peeps have been like, "Yo, the redundancy selection criteria the company uses is hella discriminatory and can't even be objectively assessed or measured." The assessment for redundancy is so unfair and unreliable, like, it's not even cool because they didn't even use the same criteria and standards for everyone's work, you know? Jakub be like:

I've been totally clowned on for being redundant because the assessment was hella biased and they didn't use the same criteria for other workers. SMH. 

I was like totally not given any heads up or info by the company about how they were gonna pick who gets the boot. If I don't get the deets or the lowdown on the selection criteria and when it's all going down, isn't it straight-up discrimination and shady AF to hit someone up out of the blue and give them a fail grade? Does this not also indicate that the company was like totally obsessed with making me irrelevant? OMG there's like, totally proof that the selection criteria for redundancy is biased, and it's so obvious in Raymond's case. SMH. Both the cases show that they believed they had been unlawfully discriminated against or victimized under equality law, ya know? Evidence of direct discrimination has also like totally emerged from the case of Raymond, ya know? Raymond was like, "Bruh, that redundancy decision was so not cool. It straight up racially discriminated against me, fam." Y'all didn't even bother to avoid straight up or lowkey discrimination. In terms of accuracy criteria, like, the question might pop up whether score 1 was, like, totally unacceptable, which could, like, make workers fail their targets, you know? Wut bout 2? Accuraccy criteria hadn't been like, clearly decided and explained, ya know? For he was like totally convinced that the assessment criteria was created with mad biases built into decisions about redundancy as well as ethnic biases, you know? Jakub, Raymond and Paulius, like, got laid off and they were totally clueless why they just went along with it and didn't do anything, smh. OMG, like if they were discriminated against, they could've totally taken it to an employment tribunal, y'know? Maybe they were like, "OMG, what if it messes up my future job prospects?!" Another reason was that they had no clue about the complaints procedure, smh. Jakub and Paulius had the contract of employment and their employers had a duty, like, legally, to give them, like, legit and quick ways to fix their problems. The employers' decision to yeet them did not vibe with a test of fairness. There was like no legit investigation done and a totally unfair hearing held on the claim that getting fired for redundancy was unfair. Clearly, the basic rights, like, duh

Raymond would totally flex on his employer with a claim for unfair dismissal, fam. 

He would totally flex a claim of being treated unfairly and facing race discrimination. As he said, like, bruh: I werk under M (line manager who is a local person). OMG, like I got busted chewing gum in the pack house by her, but she never even warned the local workers, including her own son, for doing the same thing. SMH. She does the same thing when it comes to using body spray / perfume, ya know? Once I was totally blamed for using deodorants / body spray and I was like, "Nah, fam, that's not cool!" So I came through with receipts to prove my innocence and shut down the haters. policy ain't fair for everyone, fam. Then the Production Manager (a local dude) was like, "Yo, this is just a heads up, don't be using body spray, but it ain't gonna go on your record or anything." OMG, totes shook! I got hit with some serious disciplinary action later. As we were talking about before, Paulius totally went through some straight-up discrimination. OMG, like, in every situation, peeps thought they were totally discriminated against or victimized, like, not cool under equality law. A bias in redundancy selection criteria and unfair dismissal is like, lowkey a workplace problem that can help to make equality claims, ya know? Two peeps told me how they got chosen for redundancy using a biased redundancy selection vibe. Jakub and Raymond's cases, like, totally highlight how they felt unfairly discriminated against or victimized under equality law.