Accreditation Status Employment Discrimination?

[O00O]

What is the name of your state? CALIFORNIA

I attend a California and WASC accredited law school. It is not ABA accredited.

I recently saw a "law clerk" job ad from which the following is quoted:

"Must be a law student finishing 2d year and heading into third year of ABA accredited law school." Yes, that describes me exactly... all except for the ABA accredited part.

The list of other "qualifications" includes:

"experience doing legal research" CHECK.
"Law Review or Moot Court experience" CHECK.
"excellent computer skills, expertise in use of Word and Excel" CHECK. CHECK. CHECK.
"must have excellent research and writing skills" Ok, that's redundant, but CHECK, anyway.

So, by my own assessment of my skills and experience, I at least "qualify" for an interview and probably for the job itself, in all but one respect... going to an ABA accredited law school.

Having had Constitutional Law, concerns of an Equal Protection Clause violation have raised themselves and I'm wondering if I should apply for the job and then call them on the discriminatory selection process when I don't get interviewed or if I do get an interview, don't get the job.

Yes, I know there are a dozen ways to obfuscate and dress up a decision made on the basis of prejudice and discriminatory intent, but somebody has to fight the good fight.

So my question: Do any of you also think that employment discrimination on the basis of "law school accreditation status" is unconstitutional?

Thanks for your input.



What is the name of your state? CALIFORNIA

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Where is educational accreditation discrimination unconstitutional? Or even illegal? Did I miss something?

 

[O00O]

Not a question of "legal" vs. "illegal."

It's not a question of "legal" vs. "illegal."

The correct lens through which to view this type of conduct is whether it is "constitutional" or "unconstitutional."

Laws, which have a presumption of making certain conduct "legal" and certain other conduct "illegal" can themselves be found unconstitutional. So something (a hiring practice, for instance) can be perfectly legal/lawful and still be unconstitutional. A lawful (yet possibly unconstitutional) practice only becomes illegal once challenged and declared unconstitutional by a court. So, it may be that yes, this type of discrimination is "legal" right now. Until someone challenges it, as I am considering doing. Most kinds of discrimination were legal at some point in the past.

The key is understanding Equal Protection (EP) analysis. An EP violation occurs when a person or small group of people are discriminated against when the majority of others who are "similarly situated" are not discriminated against on the same basis. There is a dividing of people into "classes" that in and of itself is not unconstitutional, so long as there are legitimate and reasonable justifications for doing so. For example, it's OK for an employer who is hiring truck drivers to discriminate of the basis of "illicit drug use" because dividing people into "drug users" and "non-drug users" has a legitimate and reasonable safety justification.

In the example I posed, a law firm is discriminating on the basis of "accreditation status of applicants' law schools" and dividing candidates into two categories: "candidates from ABA schools" and "candidates from non-ABA schools." This kind of discrimination is likely illegitimate and without reasonable justification. Implicit in such a distinction is the inherently prejudiced viewpoint that any and all candidates from ABA schools are superior to any and all candidates from non-ABA schools. Obviously, this type of "blanket" statement is infected with fallacious reasoning.

The law firm (presumably) is looking for someone who can do the job, someone who can perform the tasks assigned to them. By limiting applicants to those from ABA schools, the hiring staff of this law firm are implicitly asserting that non-ABA candidates cannot do the job... making the decision without an interview, without seeing a resume, without talking to the person or reviewing their qualifications, education and experience.

This is the very definition of invidious discrimination.

Hope this fills in whatever it was you "missed."

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

I didn't miss anything. Equal protection does not apply to your circumstances. If you had a choice between a Havard graduate and a U of P on line graduate to hire for one position, who would you choose and why? Academics is not equal between all academic institutions which is why accreditation bodies were developed.

There are several recent similar threads on your topic. Search for them.

 

[O00O]

Thank you.

I believe an employer who declines to interview your "U of P on line graduate" even for the purpose of ascertaining their skills, education and qualifications engages in unconstitutional discrimination in violation of the protections afforded by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amd.

Students and by extrapolation, job candidates are not defined by their accreditation status alone. Knowledge, skills, aptitudes and motivations for choosing and attending a particular law school vary between people. The simple fact that one person goes to Harvard and another to U of P online is NOT the definitive indicator of their fit for particular employment.

Not to disparage any law program, but for the purpose of making a point, follow along with this example...

The Harvard grad may have slacked and cheated his or her way through law school, knows very little about how the law works and possesses no actual skills whatsoever. Whereas the U of P online grad may have studied 10 hrs a day and worked as a paralegal while completing his or her degree.

Of course this does not hold true 100% of the time. But the point is this: Neither the prestige nor accreditation status of a school defines a student or graduate of that school. Personal drive, focus, effort and experience do.

It is my position that an employer who concludes, a priori, that NO qualified candidate can come from a non-ABA school, judges and discriminates against an entire class of people based on an unreasonable and indefensible logic.

Thank you for your input.

Does anyone ELSE have an opinion on the matter?

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

I believe an employer who declines to interview your "U of P on line graduate" even for the purpose of ascertaining their skills, education and qualifications engages in unconstitutional discrimination in violation of the protections afforded by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amd.

Your analysis illustrates the importance of hiring applicants from an ABA school.

 

[cbg]

My opinion concurs with that of Ozark.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Your premise proves the company's point. Someone from a top law school would know better than to put forth such a ridiculous opinion.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Your premise proves the company's point. Someone from a top law school would know better than to put forth such a ridiculous opinion.

I posted the same thought. Evidently, he felt it was offensive.

OP's attitude is similar to the technical college students' attitude expressed within the last month. The school response is familar~~teach the students pride in the institution and blame others for the school credits not transfering or the school's lack of accreditation.

 

[pattytx]

Can I get a doctorate in 12 easy lessons?

 

[tranquility]

I understand that much of Constitutional law is the pushing of boundries, can you name the *current* categories of "discrimination" the Supreme Court has found in regards to private individuals? That is, what areas can a person currently believe to have a case of discrimination if a private employer doesn't hire, interview, take an application for?

After you supply the specific instances, review the Supreme Court jurisprudence of the cases where someone tried to stretch it to accomodate a slightly broader area. Note the reasoning behind the court's refusal to expand the areas of discrimination to determine if you have a chance of changing the law.

After that, know that you will need to overcome the law in the court of original jurisdiction, the appellate level and the state supreme court and/or the U.S. Supreme court to succeed.

Good luck, Don Quioxte, your stead awaits.

 

[mlane58]

Can I get a doctorate in 12 easy lessons?

That and $600

 

[You Are Guilty]

I understand that much of Constitutional law is the pushing of boundries, can you name the *current* categories of "discrimination" the Supreme Court has found in regards to private individuals? That is, what areas can a person currently believe to have a case of discrimination if a private employer doesn't hire, interview, take an application for?

After you supply the specific instances, review the Supreme Court jurisprudence of the cases where someone tried to stretch it to accomodate a slightly broader area. Note the reasoning behind the court's refusal to expand the areas of discrimination to determine if you have a chance of changing the law.

After that, know that you will need to overcome the law in the court of original jurisdiction, the appellate level and the state supreme court and/or the U.S. Supreme court to succeed.

Good luck, Don Quioxte, your stead awaits.

Well said, but you could have saved a lot of time and just said:

Your premise proves the company's point. Someone from a top law school would know better than to put forth such a ridiculous opinion.

or, to save even more time and space, just said:

No!

 

[tranquility]

Actually, YAG, "No!" would not be accepted by the forum software. I've tried it in the past.

Info edit:
Besides, I, too, attended one of those unaccredited law schools while I was working full time. They told us, "Mo' words, Mo' betta."

 

[O00O]

not NOT Unaccredited...

I'm having trouble understanding how it is that you people equate WASC and CBE accreditation with being "unaccredited." The ABA is not the only game in town.

Your responses are typical for this forum.

I asked a question about a year ago (different moniker) about an illegal metal shop business in a residence and got the same typical responses... "Move out!" "Forget about it." "Good luck." ...ad nauseum.

In the end, I asserted my tenants' rights to be compensated due to his breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the warranty of habitability because the unit, due to the illegal business and associated equipment, was in violation of several health and safety code sections. In order to AVOID an appointment with the City building inspectors (and the probable loss of his little home-based business), my landlord settled with me and I didn't pay a dime in rent for 4 full months until I moved out. This came to $3600 in my pocket that would NOT have found its way there if I had listened to the "sage-like" advice from the learned users of this forum.

Sometimes people will settle even if there is a chance (or as you all seem to think, a likelihood) that they will prevail in court, just to avoid the hassle and possibility, however slight, of losing. My claim is not frivolous and it could very well be that the Supreme Court would broaden the horizons of actionable discrimination to encompass this type as well. Failing to even consider a candidate simply on the basis of his or her school's accreditation status is clearly discriminatory. Whether it is a kind of discrimination that is constitutional or unconstitutional is the question. I rather think a firm or company might be inclined to hire a person who raised such a claim rather than be bothered with litigating it.

Again, my school IS accredited by two separate California state (CBE) and Western U.S. regional associations (WASC), just not ABA, since you all seem to keep missing this point.