religion discrimination

[ecmst12]

That's an AWFULLY broad blanket statement....it's not illegal in some settings, but in others (employment, education, housing), it most definitely is! You don't have to like everyone but if you try to deny them a job because of their race or religion or where they are born, you could end up with a serious problem.

Perhaps you meant to say PREDJUDICE is not illegal, that would be true. But discrimination (acting on a predjudice) is, in many situations.

 

[janimal]

Perhaps you just don't like the way I am wording this...so here is a link to the Georgetown University Law website, that clearly explains what I am talking about. And the question, "where were you born" is clearly listed as a question that should not be asked.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/career/questions.html

 

[BelizeBreeze]

That's an AWFULLY broad blanket statement....it's not illegal in some settings, but in others (employment, education, housing), it most definitely is! You don't have to like everyone but if you try to deny them a job because of their race or religion or where they are born, you could end up with a serious problem.

Actually, that is NOT true. Discrimination in employment, in housing and even in education is perfectly legal in some instances. Ever hear of a retirement community being sued by someone in their 20s who was denied access because of their age?

Perhaps you meant to say PREDJUDICE is not illegal, that would be true. But discrimination (acting on a predjudice) is, in many situations.

Nope, I said exactly what I wanted to say.

 

[Ohiogal]

And BB is right. Discrimination is NOT illegal. Types of discrimination are against the law but discrimination in and of itself is not. I can refuse to hire someone because they are tall, short, fat, skinny, brunette, blonde, wearing the color red, driving a BMW, driving a VW, walking, taking the bus, not owning a car, or for various other reasons. I can decide that anyone who drives a nicer car than me doesn't get hired. That is discrimination. It is LEGAL discrimination. And no one can do anything about it.

 

[mitousmom]

Here's what EEOC has to say about such pre-employment questions:

The Commission enforces, among other laws, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (ADEA). Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the bases of race, color, sex, religion, and national origin. The ADEA prohibits discrimination against persons who are over age 40 and are treated less favorably than relatively younger people. Making pre-employment inquiries that directly or indirectly disclose the applicant's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or age does not constitute a per se violation of Title VII or the ADEA.​

Asking about an applicant's disability, however, is a per se violation of the ADA.

 

[janimal]

Asking the questions is not illegal. I never said it was. However, if the questions are asked and an adverse employment decision is made, then it becomes much more difficult to defend that the information did not play a part in the adverse decision. And at the very least, some of these questions could offend a potential employee. There are very good reasons why HR people are consistently trained not to ask these kinds of questions. It's not that there are chips on our shoulders! If you follow the link I provided to Georgetown Law they do a great job of articulating what I am trying to say.

The bottom line (to me) is that only job related questions should be asked in an interview, and when checking references. And this is how I train, and will continue to train.

Not ALL discrimination is illegal - of course. But Belize was not accurate to say that discrimination is not illegal, because it very often is. Just not all the time! There is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Asking the questions is not illegal. I never said it was. However, if the questions are asked and an adverse employment decision is made, then it becomes much more difficult to defend that the information did not play a part in the adverse decision.

Really? So you are saying that the EMPLOYER has the burden of proof in such a suit? Where did you study law?

And at the very least, some of these questions could offend a potential employee. There are very good reasons why HR people are consistently trained not to ask these kinds of questions. It's not that there are chips on our shoulders! If you follow the link I provided to Georgetown Law they do a great job of articulating what I am trying to say.

Sorry, but I already attended law school. GWU , so don't need Georgetown.

The bottom line (to me) is that only job related questions should be asked in an interview, and when checking references. And this is how I train, and will continue to train.

and how you relate to those you are supposed to train is by calling the "Gal"? Seems a bit of the pot calling the kettle black don't you think?

Not ALL discrimination is illegal - of course. But Belize was not accurate to say that discrimination is not illegal, because it very often is. Just not all the time! There is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination.

BULLCRAP. And then you say "it very often is..." Make up your mind. It can't be both.

You have no idea of what you speak. And in your answers you're contradicting yourself. Or should we think someone with 10 years of HR experience should know better than to call a woman "GAL"

 

[mitousmom]

And BB is right. Discrimination is NOT illegal. Types of discrimination are against the law but discrimination in and of itself is not. I can refuse to hire someone because they are tall, short, fat, skinny, brunette, blonde, wearing the color red, driving a BMW, driving a VW, walking, taking the bus, not owning a car, or for various other reasons. I can decide that anyone who drives a nicer car than me doesn't get hired. That is discrimination. It is LEGAL discrimination. And no one can do anything about it.

Refusing to hire applicants because of height has been shown to have an adverse impact on certain groups protected under Title VII and unless the employer can justify the restriction, violative of Title VII. The same argument might be made about brunettes and blondes, to the extent that they exclude members of races or national origins who disproportinately have black or dark brown hair.

However, I would agree that most discrimination in the employment setting is not illegal. Legislatures have seen fit to only enact legislation prohibiting very specific forms of discrimination. Hiring the most qualified person for a job is a form of discrimination. However, it's legal and what most people expect.

Maybe the rest of EEOC's opinion on the subject will clarify things on pre-employment inquiries, at least as far as EEOC and the federal EEO laws are concerned.

However, unless needed for some legal purpose, such as affirmative action or obtaining applicant flow data, such inquiries may be important evidence of discriminatory selection, since it is reasonable to assume that all questions on an application form or in a pre-employment interview are asked for some purpose and that hiring decisions are made on the basis of the answers given. Gregory v. Litton Systems, 316 F. Supp. 401, 403 (C.D. Cal. 1970) (pre-employment information which is obtained is likely to be used), modified on other grounds, 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972). Therefore, if challenged, the focus of the investigation is not on the pre-employment inquiry itself, but on the validity of the selection criterion. Employers also should not inquire about matters which may disproportionately exclude members of protected groups, unless the inquiry concerns a legitimate attribute for the job, i.e., the employer can show that the requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity.​

 

[Ohiogal]

Mitousmom,
Hair color that is a direct correlation with ethnic background leans towards the illegal discrimination based on ethnic background. Not hair color itself. And that was used as a broad illustration of the fact that you can discriminate legally for a broad range of reasons and no one can do a thing about it. That is all. Take to my car example -- if you drive a better car than me I won't hire you. Hey I just discriminated. And it was perfectly legal.

 

[janimal]

I'm just floored that my recommendation to NOT ask candidates these questions has been responded to with such animosity. It is my job to protect my employer against selection discrimination lawsuits.

I see no need to beat that horse. BB, I respectfully do not agree with your point of view and I think it's a shame that you debate the point in the manner you choose. Ah well, I know I am not the only target of your angry posts.

As to whether or not discrimination is legal or not, is that it could be or not. (Yes I can have it both ways) To say discrimination is not illegal is wrong. To say that discrimination is illegal is also wrong. There are many lawsuits over what does and does not constitute illegal discrimination.

Oy Vey.

 

[mitousmom]

Mitousmom,
Hair color that is a direct correlation with ethnic background leans towards the illegal discrimination based on ethnic background. Not hair color itself.

Sorry, I don't get the distinction. Hair color is like height or a high school degree. They are neutral factors or requirements, that can have a disparate impact based on the characteristics of a particular race or national origin.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I'm just floored that my recommendation to NOT ask candidates these questions has been responded to with such animosity. It is my job to protect my employer against selection discrimination lawsuits.

I see no need to beat that horse. BB, I respectfully do not agree with your point of view and I think it's a shame that you debate the point in the manner you choose. Ah well, I know I am not the only target of your angry posts.

As to whether or not discrimination is legal or not, is that it could be or not. (Yes I can have it both ways) To say discrimination is not illegal is wrong. To say that discrimination is illegal is also wrong. There are many lawsuits over what does and does not constitute illegal discrimination.

Oy Vey.

I'm not debating anything. I happen to be right. Discrimination is not Illegal. and for every SPECIFIC case which follows very narrow guidelines that you can find for which the RESULT of such discrimination is illegal, I only need to find one case where it is not.

you see, you have been arguing a positive. And that is a foolish thing since all I need to disprove a positive is one negative out of n number of possibilities.

By the way, if this is how you approach your job, stick to driving a taxi. You're better suited.

And why did you NOT answer as to your sexist remark? A little too close to the bone there?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Sorry, I don't get the distinction. Hair color is like height or a high school degree. They are neutral factors or requirements, that can have a disparate impact based on the characteristics of a particular race or national origin.

Hair color is a physical attribute for which the courts have already ruled an employer MAY discriminate under certain circumstances.

 

[pattytx]

Hair color is a physical attribute for which the courts have already ruled an employer MAY discriminate under certain circumstances.

Besides, you can always change your hair color. I have.

 

[janimal]

I don't have a bone. I'm a gal.

Driving a taxi doesn't appeal to me. I'll stick to my HR profession, thanks.