Discriminatory Hiring Practices

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I was recently recommended for a job. I got in touch with someone at this company (which will remain unnamed), who told me right out that they were looking for a woman to fill the job. "Lots of testosterone around here; our CTO's looking to break it up a little." "I could wear a dress." "Ha ha ha." We discuss my background and qualifications. He tells me I sound perfect. "Send me your resume anyway, we'll see what happens." So anyway I do; I don't get the job; I have a paper trail documenting everything.

The problem is, it's a GOOD thing that they're diversifying their workplace. But could I get $? I'm super-broke and they have money.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

If you lose, a lot of wasted effort. If you win, hmmm, yes, money — but also large numbers of foax (not all non-male) automatically assuming you are a reactionary dickhead who hates and fears women... ??

― mark s, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Answer to everything = Tell them you're gay!

― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Tracer H's life = extraordinary ongoing MELODRAMA in which a LIFE- CHANGING DILEMMA opens up each week and he must needs consult his pals about it.

All to a totally unlistenable soundtrack.

(PS / only last sentence above was meant negatively.)

― the pinefox, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Sadly, Sterling is absolutely correct. If you're looking for big bucks, go with the homosexual route. If you're not gay, experiment for a couple of months. It'll pay the rent for the year. I can't believe I'm giving advice such as this.

― Gage-o, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Speaking of which -- somebody in Chicago, GIVE ME A JOB!!!!!

― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

How much you collect depends on where you live, but the it will take at least a year before you see a penny, and 1/3 plus expenses would go to the attorney. You also have a duty to mitigate, which means you need to be looking for another job right now, and if you find one, your compensatory damages would be only be for the salary you missed while you were unemployed (punitive damages are possible, but this would be limited by the size of the company you applied to).

You're better off just getting on with your life, unless its the principle of the thing (true of most discrim. cases, really, but the principle can be major).

― Mark, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Also, the EEOC doesn't deal w/ discriminatory hiring based on sexual preference, so being gay doesn't help you here.

― Mark, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Pinefox - melodrama only = life-changing if I'd gotten a sex-change operation performed to get the job. Otherwise it's looking pretty quotidian. But sometimes it's hard to know; I turn to the experts.

Mark Pitchfork, that's exactly the sort of niggly reality that I reckoned would be involved. Selling out your principles is harder than it looks.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

If you're not gay, experiment for a couple of months. It'll pay the rent for the year

How come I was never alerted to this little-known fact?

― Sean, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

It's almost certainly illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in that case, you have a right to monetary damages under the 1990 Civil Rights Act. If the particular business has a purpose that requires gender-specific hiring because of a bona fide occupational qualification, then discrimination is legal, but those circumstances are very narrowly defined.

Keep in mind, too, that affirmative action programs are narrowly restricted to employers and fields of employment that have had a history of discrimination, and is restricted to using gender as a positive factor in deciding between equally qualified candidates. A whim that they should "diversify" by using this particular hire to bring in a woman isn't enough to justify discrimination.

Seems to me your case is an example of an employer trying to exploit a weak job market to deny legal rights to employment candidates, not to rectify past wrongs or to create a certain environment. Maybe the CTO just wants some hott ass to look at, not to strike a blow for women. This "reactionary" worry is out of line here.

Paying for it is tricky, but many lawyers have adopted the approach of offering their services free unless they win the case, in which they take a sizeable chunk of the award. Some people (usually right- wingers) decry it as sleazy and immoral, but with subsidized legal aid limited to criminal cases (and even then almost entirely inadequate), that sort of fee-contingency is the only way for anybody but the well-off to get decent legal representation even in the most clear-cut cases.

The problem as always is proving discrimination, and while you have someone inside the company, a case would need more than that sort of hearsay. But I suppose you could contact an employment attorney and ask.

― Benjamin, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Just to go on a bit more: assuming your insider is correct about the hiring criterion, if this place *were* in fact committed to diversity, with a legitimate affirmative action plan in place, and are trying to cover their asses belatedly, then they wouldn't have to stake so much on screwing you over on this one hire. Sue them is what I say.

― Benjamin, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Also of course you would have to prove that the person hired is not better qualified, more suitable etc. Human resources departments should keep their notes on the hiring process including such reasons to cover the arses in these kind of situations (in the UK you have a right to see these). Of course if it can be seen to be reasonable that the decision was based on fraudulent reason on these notes then you might have a case. But frankly a bit of hearsay probably would not make a case. Get on with life.

― Pete, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

don't know anything about Employment Discrimination, Title VII, NY Human Rights Law, or anything like that. do have vague idea that law on federal level isn't as plaintiff-friendly as it used to be (Bill Rehnquist, Fat Tony Scalia, and Uncle Thomas are probably to thank for that), though maybe more plaintiff-friendly under New York state law. didn't take that Employment Discrimination class in L-school, wasn't on the bar exam, and where i work is prob. more inclined to employers anyway.

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Pete I am getting on with life, because I have to. Nae danger of me not "mitigating" in this case.

Fantasy scenario: I sue for 1 year's salary. They are so SKURT of my legal might and journalistic connections (ha) that they immediately settle for 20 grand. But the reality: it seems like a lot of hassle to go through for probably no more than a grand in the end. Which is as it should be, I think. I am not being "discriminated" against. Fucked with, yes. There oughta be a law.

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

two years pass...

i heard about a company that i wanted to work at. based on their hiring procedure i pursued employment. i moved from indiana to south
carilina with my wife and 5 kids to give it a shot. the 1st step was to score above average of all applicants. which i did. 2nd step was to score above the companies apptitude grade which i did. the 3rd step was to be interviewed by two different persons and if i got 2 thumbs up by each i would be placed in their job pool. and i would have the opportunity to interview for job openings. well they changed it and will not even give me the chance on the 1st interview.they have also been hiring other individuals who worked at a similar company that closed down.without going through the same tests . my problem is that on my own i stepped out and pursued this based on the way they said i would have to and then they changed it because an unusual amount of people scored high on the tests.they said now they would only interview those with more qaulifications.they wont even talk to us now because of too many phone calls. is there anything i can do?

― michael weis, Friday, 28 May 2004 17:35 (twenty years ago) link

http://originaldo.com/buzz-aldrin-moon-mcdonalds.jpg

― Be sure to Loop! Loop, Loop, Loop. (ex machina), Friday, 28 May 2004 17:37 (twenty years ago) link

i moved from indiana to south carilina with my wife and 5 kids to give it a shot.

out of the frying pan and into hell.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 28 May 2004 17:44 (twenty years ago) link

A well-crafted letter explaining why you deserve a chance to interview (based on your qualifications, not on their failed process) would be helpful. Explain why you're strong, not just for the job, but as an asset to the company - and why it would benefit them long term to have you as part of the organization.

But legally, no _ i don't believe they have any obligation to fulfill their earlier promises.

― dave225 (Dave225), Friday, 28 May 2004 18:01 (twenty years ago) link

omg no please no "cover letters thread" to thread!

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 28 May 2004 18:06 (twenty years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.