the actual topic i was trying to [melodramatically] address was typological prejudice in the workplace and in society at large.
_____________________________________________________________
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
so, does the alternative of typological prejudice means mister King got what he was asking for?
To respond to the edited OP: there are many forms of prejudice. Prejudice is simply pre-judging someone, forming a conclusion about them based on some readily observable quality that may have nothing to do with their character, meant here in the moral sense, as I believe ML King used it. This can be things we are born with, like race, sex, culture, etc; or things we choose, like having tattoos, riding a motorcycle, or just living in the "bad" part of town. Discrimination is acting on those prejudices in a way that we exclude (or include) people based on characteristics irrelevant to the situation. If we want to hire a chef, for instance, being black is irrelevant, but if we want an actor to portray ML King, it becomes very relevant.
All this to say, if we are using type codes to make decisions in the workplace, this is just as unethical as any form of discrimination, since it ignores the individuality of people. That being said, certain jobs require certain abilities or qualities, say attention to detail, or the ability to work with people. Some types *tend* to do better at this than others. The key is the word *tend*. If someone of a type that is generally poor at the ability has nonetheless learned to do it well, they deserve the same consideration as anyone else. As long as workplace decisions focus on relevant skills and abilities, one's type code doesn't matter any more than anything else.