Which is inherently discriminatory. Especially when their lawyers have absolutely told their executives that and they could care less.

I thought that goes without saying:

• They already have connections in Taiwan, so that’s the easiest workforce for them to draw from.
• They have closer language & cultural ease with fellow Taiwanese people than people from anywhere else in the global labor market.

But this article isn’t about Taiwanese H1-B visa workers vs other H1-B workers, it’s about H1-B workers vs domestic workers. The fact that almost all those H1-B workers happen to be Taiwanese is a bit of a red herring.

I doubt it. There's a reason why employers have American employees fill out the Department of Labour self-identification survey during the hiring process. If the government sees that nine Asian, six white, three black, and two Hispanic individuals apply for a position, and the company chooses to only hire eight of the Asian applicants, that would definitely raise red flags. Especially when the racial demographics of the company disproportionately represent Asian individuals. Its pretty easy to see what the company is doing in that case.

Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not discrimination to hire on the basis of race if it affects the persons performance with the job. For example that's why movie studios aren't hit with discrimination lawsuits for rejecting black individuals when casting for Abraham Lincoln. But there is no way that a court would accept that a technician or engineer position is in any way affected by a person's race.

Further, there is no legal argument that an engineer knowing mandarin in any way effects their performance, when a company worth billions of dollars avoid English translations of documents for their US based plants, with the sole intention to creating a discriminatory barrier.

The company has no plausible deniability here, and any court would see right through it. White owned businesses tried many of the same tactics with black individuals, and precedents have been set because of that.

English is not my native language, but I think there's a valid distinction between systemic (an institution being racist) and non-systemic racism (an individual or individual entity being racist)

If this was an American company doing this in another country, wouldn't we be calling this racist? I understand that there can be no systemic violence against white people in the US, but there can be discrimination (as you call it) against them. Also, like another commenter mentioned, what if other people (e.g black people) were discriminated against with this policy? Would you then call it racist instead of "just" discriminatory?

It doesn't seem a meaningful distinction to make in this case, at least to me.

That's incredibly disingenuous. There are 12 suit filers in total, among which are Elena Huizar, a self described Latina woman, and Modupe Adesemoye, a self-described African American woman. Further, Howington is the primary suit filer because she was a hiring manager with the company, she isn't some white woman crying about not getting a job. She approached a lawyer because she was told to discard the applications of non-Taiwanese individuals and American born workers applying for unionized positions. Did you even bother reading the suit?

A multi-billion dollar corporation could commission a hundred translators and have their entire operations translated in under a month if they wanted to. That wouldn't even register as a rounding error in their budget and expenses. They're pissy that a discriminatory scheme they cooked up to save costs and disrupt union activity is getting exposed.

You do realize that them not hiring other races/ethnicity also applies to Black individuals, Hispanics, Muslims, non-east Asian peoples such as Indians, and so on, correct?

You're the one who chose to hyperfocus on white people. Do you think that there are no resumes from black or Indian engineers that they threw in the trash in favor of Taiwanese ones?