Hiring discrimination

[eerelations]

If an applicant has 30+ years of work history on his/her resume, it would be safe to assume that said applicant is over 40 years old.

 

[kolabok]

you'll are killing me ! First I need to apologize ranting on the other post as I did, seems it might have gotten censored by the mod. I'm holding on the middle of a burning stick on both ends.
Secondly a lotta if's, do's, and don'ts's. I am no legal expert at all and my ideas, well are my ideas, but based on Greco-roman understanding. I simply think we have allowed laws to become focused on what can be taken away rather than what could be gained from it, not necessarily riches and wealth untold, but other priceless things that make us human. But even this is a pipe dream of short duration and probably sooner than later, all hell will break loose. That's what we do fight, conquer and divide.
My idea of justice served would be something from the courts of Kublai Khan.

But hey am off track so, with what is mentioned, a slim chance to none, even with the cozy relationships between jurisdictions.
I do get it, but it doesn't make it right. I have a right to gainful employment and if not, collect SS with the Medicare and forget about. Ill take my chances off the grid if nothing else,so be it.

One fact I failed to mention is the present building official (job applied for) use to be an employee like me with the other jurisdiction. So there is a grapevine of sorts, not only with the two locals, but really a national, if not international organization.
In other words, Everyone will treat me as a dissident. In fact I have applied for several building inspector jobs up and down the east coast in the past 6 months. no surprise then!

Some one had mentioned the part about employers ability to throw applications up in the air and only choose the ones face up, is that truly permissible? So I am better off playing poker or blackjack. I didn't see it written that way at the EEOC site, but the EEOC is tentatively a mediator of sorts, who for all practical reasons very conservative to helping out.

Lastly, I suppose I could file a compliant in court for discrimination on my own merits. I know this is not the 1800's with a hanging judge court setting where the victim can speak for himself in all matters of law without having to resort to hiring a lawyer. But I am sure the pole is already greased for me.

anyway good stuff. If anything someone else will benefit.

thanks

 

[Zigner]

you'll are killing me ! First I need to apologize ranting on the other post as I did, seems it might have gotten censored by the mod. I'm holding on the middle of a burning stick on both ends.
Secondly a lotta if's, do's, and don'ts's. I am no legal expert at all and my ideas, well are my ideas, but based on Greco-roman understanding. I simply think we have allowed laws to become focused on what can be taken away rather than what could be gained from it, not necessarily riches and wealth untold, but other priceless things that make us human. But even this is a pipe dream of short duration and probably sooner than later, all hell will break loose. That's what we do fight, conquer and divide.
My idea of justice served would be something from the courts of Kublai Khan.

But hey am off track so, with what is mentioned, a slim chance to none, even with the cozy relationships between jurisdictions.
I do get it, but it doesn't make it right. I have a right to gainful employment and if not, collect SS with the Medicare and forget about. Ill take my chances off the grid if nothing else,so be it.

One fact I failed to mention is the present building official (job applied for) use to be an employee like me with the other jurisdiction. So there is a grapevine of sorts, not only with the two locals, but really a national, if not international organization.
In other words, Everyone will treat me as a dissident. In fact I have applied for several building inspector jobs up and down the east coast in the past 6 months. no surprise then!

Some one had mentioned the part about employers ability to throw applications up in the air and only choose the ones face up, is that truly permissible? So I am better off playing poker or blackjack. I didn't see it written that way at the EEOC site, but the EEOC is tentatively a mediator of sorts, who for all practical reasons very conservative to helping out.

Lastly, I suppose I could file a compliant in court for discrimination on my own merits. I know this is not the 1800's with a hanging judge court setting where the victim can speak for himself in all matters of law without having to resort to hiring a lawyer. But I am sure the pole is already greased for me.

anyway good stuff. If anything someone else will benefit.

thanks

First, let's be clear: Are you applying for a government job, or are you applying for a private sector job?

As to the throwing applications in the air, etc...that's actually the MOST fair way to do it when you have a number of otherwise qualified people applying to the same position. It removes ALL bias from that portion of the selection process.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Some one had mentioned the part about employers ability to throw applications up in the air and only choose the ones face up, is that truly permissible?

For private employment, it is absolutely permissible. The law does not dictate how private employers handle their hiring process with the exception that federal and many state/local laws prohibit discrimination against an applicant because of certain protected characteristics. For example, under federal law an employer cannot discriminate against an employee or applicant on the basis of race, color, national origin, citizenship, religion, sex, age (if the employee is at least age 40), disability, or genetic test information.

For government employment, civil service laws and regulations may set out the basic process the agency must use, but these laws and regulations vary widely. Some do not regulate the process much at all.

 

[eerelations]

You cannot file your own lawsuit (with or without an attorney) for illegal discrimination. You are legally obliged to have a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC before any lawsuit can be initiated. To get a right-to-sue letter you need to file a claim with the EEOC for age discrimination.

And yes, it's perfectly legal to throw resumes in the air and then interview only the ones that land face up. The reason that this practice is legal is that there are no laws prohibiting it. In fact there are very few laws on the subject of recruitment practices, and of the few in existence, most are concerned with practices that discriminate against members of protected classes. Throwing resumes in the air and interviewing only those that land face up does not discriminate against any protected classes.

 

[cbg]

Did you read the post early in the thread from Shadowbunny? She wasn't kidding. A few years ago, the employer of a friend of mine opened a new facility. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like, they had 200 positions and on the FIRST DAY they had more than four times that many applications, culminating in several thousand applications before they closed. For the sake of argument, let's say it was 3,000. That isn't too far off if I'm recalling correctly, even if it isn't exact.

Let's use Shadow's hypothetical and assume that 80% of the applications were from people who were NOT qualified (and that's probably not at all accurate - the percentage of qualified applicants is likely much higher. But for the sake of this argument, we'll go with 20% of qualified applicants.) So if everyone has to be interviewed, let's call that 600 applicants. Now, we'll be really generous and assume that the employer has three recruiters who can be assigned full time to this project (and many private employers wouldn't have that many). So each of the three recruiters has 200 people to interview.

Now, a really good interview can last an hour or even more, but these recruiters are going to be pretty busy so let's say they're limited to a half hour. 8 hours in an average workday, so that's 16 people to interview each day. Now, keep in mind, that's not even allowing them time to use the restroom, let alone write up their notes; that's nothing but interviewing.

Using those figures, it would take each of the three recruiters 12 and a half business days doing absolutely nothing but interviewing and interviewing non-stop, just to conduct the first interview of all the qualified candidates.

Tell me again how it's illegal discrimination not to interview every applicant?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

... I have a right to gainful employment ...

What on earth gave you that idea?

 

[kolabok]

I have a question for the OP. Did the application and/or resume you submitted have your DOB or age on it?

Also you started this thread with this statement, "This is a question concerning a right to seek gainful employment and being blacklisted from the previous employer."

What is your question regarding this issue? There is no national blacklist. You may have gotten a bad reference but there is only an issue there if they lied to give you such a reference.

Also, you asked about FOIA for data from the employer you applied with. Private entities aren't subject to the FOIA. And employee application for government jobs aren't either.

1.yes
2.blacklisted as in the source (former employer) giving me a bad name to other potential employers in the same line of work
3.county government

 

[kolabok]

What on earth gave you that idea?

one of links to an attorney at law's website.

well the anything goes, what the heck Ill get in the welfare line then

 

[kolabok]

Did you read the post early in the thread from Shadowbunny? She wasn't kidding. A few years ago, the employer of a friend of mine opened a new facility. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like, they had 200 positions and on the FIRST DAY they had more than four times that many applications, culminating in several thousand applications before they closed. For the sake of argument, let's say it was 3,000. That isn't too far off if I'm recalling correctly, even if it isn't exact.

Let's use Shadow's hypothetical and assume that 80% of the applications were from people who were NOT qualified (and that's probably not at all accurate - the percentage of qualified applicants is likely much higher. But for the sake of this argument, we'll go with 20% of qualified applicants.) So if everyone has to be interviewed, let's call that 600 applicants. Now, we'll be really generous and assume that the employer has three recruiters who can be assigned full time to this project (and many private employers wouldn't have that many). So each of the three recruiters has 200 people to interview.

Now, a really good interview can last an hour or even more, but these recruiters are going to be pretty busy so let's say they're limited to a half hour. 8 hours in an average workday, so that's 16 people to interview each day. Now, keep in mind, that's not even allowing them time to use the restroom, let alone write up their notes; that's nothing but interviewing.

Using those figures, it would take each of the three recruiters 12 and a half business days doing absolutely nothing but interviewing and interviewing non-stop, just to conduct the first interview of all the qualified candidates.

Tell me again how it's illegal discrimination not to interview every applicant?

I live in a hick town, population 100, 4 people applied
what difference does it make? if walks like a duck, quack like a duck, it probably is a duck. I am getting legally shamed by one county I live in.

 

[kolabok]

If an applicant has 30+ years of work history on his/her resume, it would be safe to assume that said applicant is over 40 years old.

which century might that not be true ?

 

[cbg]

You still have not presented one iota of evidence that your former employer has said word one about you to anyone.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

1.yes
2.blacklisted as in the source (former employer) giving me a bad name to other potential employers in the same line of work
3.county government

1. That is very bad HR practice to have that question on an application and may, in itself, be enough for the EEOC to investigate.
2. A bad reference isn't blacklisting. It is a bad reference. Maybe you were a bad employee.
3. Is there some sort of civil service commission in place?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

one of links to an attorney at law's website.

well the anything goes, what the heck Ill get in the welfare line then

I'd not visit that lawyers website too much. There is no law giving you a "right" to any job.

 

[eerelations]

which century might that not be true ?

I don't understand your question. I was responding to someone else on this thread. Why is this an issue for you?