> Does anyone know how affected applicants are supposed to participate in this lawsuit?
They aren't.
> That is, the remedies include remuneration for these applicants, but it doesn't look like there's a clear way for people to indicate that they think they were affected by this bias.
Hiring, not remuneration, of some from the "affected class list", is one of the remedies sought. Since the government has through the compliance audits which identified these issues all the hiring records for the positions at issue, including the information on the unsuccessful applicants, they don't really need people to reach out to them to identify that they think they were affected. If there is an remedy issued that would require identifying affected individuals, they already know who is involved.
From the last line of the article: "The lawsuit seeks relief for impacted individuals, including lost wages." This sounds like remuneration to me.
I don't know how the government can identify race of all applicants, since this cannot reliably be done by surname or by any other indirect method. And since applicants cannot be required to provide this information in an application, there is no direct method either (other than seeking applicants to identify themselves after the fact).
I am curious about this partly because I am an Asian American who interviewed at Palantir and was turned down for not having enough X skills, when I was never asked any questions pertaining to X.
> From the last line of the article: "The lawsuit seeks relief for impacted individuals, including lost wages." This sounds like remuneration to me.
I missed that in reviewing the actual lawsuit (and thought it was an error in the article), but see it on review. In any case, the point that the government knows who the applicants are remains.
> I don't know how the government can identify race of all applicants
The government can identify all the applicants. If it reaches the stage at which more information from them becomes relevant, the government can reach out to the applicants for additional information. It doesn't need to rely on the applicants initiating the contact.
Though if, as you indicate, you are personally interested and what to proactively contact the government to make sure you don't miss out on any opportunities, contact information for the office responsible for the lawsuit is in the press release [0] announcing it.
Thanks for the link. I'm a little surprised that there isn't any info in the press release indicating how individuals can share their experiences with the DOL. Perhaps they figure they have 90% of the info already, and that's good enough?
> Thanks for the link. I'm a little surprised that there isn't any info in the press release indicating how individuals can share their experiences with the DOL. Perhaps they figure they have 90% of the info already, and that's good enough?
The processes under the contracting rules at issue are fairly well established, and I suspect if additional information from applicants was relevant they would have actively reached out before filing the lawsuit. I think that this action is about the overall nature of the hiring processes at issue where the key evidence is the internal documentation of the hiring process and decisions made with in it, and not the experiences of individual applicants.
I imagine it must feel weirdly impersonal as someone within the affected class, though, since its both about your experience in a general sense, but not all that concerned with it in a specific sense.
They aren't.
> That is, the remedies include remuneration for these applicants, but it doesn't look like there's a clear way for people to indicate that they think they were affected by this bias.
Hiring, not remuneration, of some from the "affected class list", is one of the remedies sought. Since the government has through the compliance audits which identified these issues all the hiring records for the positions at issue, including the information on the unsuccessful applicants, they don't really need people to reach out to them to identify that they think they were affected. If there is an remedy issued that would require identifying affected individuals, they already know who is involved.