Job seekers who have long suspected it's harder to get a job if you don't have one may get some help from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The agency held a meeting today looking into potential discrimination against job seekers who are unemployed at the time of their application. The concern: whether employers are using current employment status as a way to gauge the quality of an applicant’s job performance, and whether this practice has a disparate impact on people protected under civil rights laws.
“Throughout its 45 year history, the EEOC has identified and remedied discrimination in hiring and remains committed to ensuring job applicants are treated fairly,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien in a written statement. “Today’s meeting gave the commission an important opportunity to learn about the emerging practice of excluding unemployed persons from applicant pools.”
University of Colorado School of Law professor Helen Norton testified that a sampling of recent job announcements showed employers have required applicants for a wide range of jobs (including litigation associates) to be currently employed as a condition of further consideration.
She noted that measures that disproportionately exclude protected class members from job opportunities without adequate justification run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“This practice raises questions and concerns under current antidiscrimination law that deserve attention,” she said in written testimony.
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy William Spriggs presented current national employment statistics showing that African-Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented among the unemployed. He also said that excluding the unemployed would be more likely to limit opportunities for older applicants as well as persons with disabilities.
But Jones Day partner James Urban testified that, in his experience, employers “solicit, welcome and consider all qualified candidates regardless of their employment status.”
“Under the widespread practice that I have seen employers follow, the simple fact that the applicant is or was unemployed does not operate to disqualify the applicant,” he said, according to his written testimony. “The reason the employer may decline to hire the applicant will be the underlying reason the applicant became unemployed, and typically it is job-related.”
This is so good to hear. I recently applied for a job and they do drug testing for nicotine and don't hire smokers and according to the EEOC any thing that bars someone that has nothing to do with their job in applicant testing should be considered a violation. I agree.
Posted by: susan smith | February 23, 2011 at 07:56 AM
The Declaration of Independence states, ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,..." however, the truth is all man are NOT TREATED equally in this country and never have been.
This has obviously included the workplace. This statement, "Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy William Spriggs presented current national employment statistics showing that African-Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented among the unemployed. He also said that excluding the unemployed would be more likely to limit opportunities for older applicants as well as persons with disabilities." make the insidous hypocrisy of what I call "workplace conspiracy" all the more glaring.
What is "workplace conspiracy"? In the criminal realm, When two or more individuals get together and plan to commit a crime and break a law it's usually called conspiracy. Unfortunately, the same attitude and intent for conspiracy happens routinely in the workplace. But, there are no severe penalties for deterrence as there are in criminal law.
Thus, in an "AT WILL" employment environment unscrupulous employers working in concert with their managers, supervisors, HR, legal department or EEO, co-workers even customers devise schemes to violate the rights of career seekers and employees. Anyone that thinks or seeks to justify the notion it's coincidental that diverse groups are far more adversely affected by "unemployment discrimination" are part of the same hypocrisy and denial.
Posted by: Yancey the BasicEmployeeRights Advocate | February 18, 2011 at 03:12 PM
I'd not wish it on anyone, but it would be amusing to see if, should you become unemployed through no fault of your own, and have trouble finding employment because of your status, you would then, after a few weeks or months, revise your opinion.
Posted by: Bruce Wilson | February 17, 2011 at 09:32 AM
It's also a fact, and a fact which can't be wished away, that the longer you are unemployed the harder it is to get back into the working habit, and in the end you may be unemployable. Even if you lost your job for a discriminatory reason it is preposterous to expect employers not to prefer people who have not lost the work habit.
Posted by: Andrew | February 16, 2011 at 06:57 PM
You people are such sukkaz for a sob story. The reason they want to avoid unemployed is the same reason you don't want junkmail in your mailbox. It wastes your time. You are not going to buy the crap, but they have to send it to you anyway or they dont get their paychecks.
Remember - you have to apply for jobs to get your paychecks.
So you send your resume to anyone - even if there is no chance of you getting the job.
This means the companies are stuck with recycling a bunch of junkmail. It is that simple.
Unless you are a sucker and think there is some conspearacy (yes, misspellled)
Posted by: jack russell | February 16, 2011 at 05:32 PM