Legal reasons to deny employment

[Agent Foxtrot]

What are some legal reasons you are allowed to deny employment to someone? Obviously merit, work experience, training, education, etc., but what are some other reasons, either fair or unfair, that it is legal to deny a person a job?

For example, can you deny employment to everyone named Jack? Can you have a "Gingers need not apply" rule? What if the applicant was the sister of someone you had a nasty breakup with?

Edit: I'm not asking for any particular reason, nor am I in charge of the hiring or firing at my job. I was just wondering.

[cmkeller]

"Jack not name, Jack job!"

[suranyi]

You're thinking about this the wrong way. There are illegal reasons to deny eimployment. To some extent, what these are depend on where you are, but in general they include things like race, sex, religion, etc.

Any reason not on that list of illegal reasons is a legal reason to deny employment.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Ability to perform job duties. You don't hire somebody with a lumbar spinal fusion to work in construction, and an employer is legally justified in denying employment to people who are physically unable to perform the inherent duties of the job. Of course, this is limited by the ADA and by state legislation requiring employers to hire people with pre-existing disabilities subject to reimbursement by the state for workers' compensation claims and stuff like that.

[Gary T]

Originally Posted by suranyi

You're thinking about this the wrong way....Any reason not on that list of illegal reasons is a legal reason to deny employment.

Yeah, it's a lot easier (and more thorough) to list the half dozen or so illegal reasons than to try to think of and list all umpty-thousand legal reasons.

[Markxxx]

The most surprising answer is, is "no reason at all."

"I just didn't like him," is the real reason most people fail to get a job. Of course no company will tell you that. It just avoids issues so they always say, "there were other more qualified applicants."

Whether this is true or not, it'd be hard to prove unless you had an "in" in the company who could prove otherwise.

When I did H/R I would conduct the opening interview and you'd be surprised what people would tell me.

I had one guy tell me "Well I ain't much of a team player, I like things my own way."

OK that's just what every company wants to hear.

I was interviewing one guy for the job as a wedding manager. He would book all the weddings for the hotel.

I asked him "How do you deal with difficult or unreasonable or excitable people"? He tells me "Well I don't do well at that, I usually blow up and yell at them, but then I can calm then down and we get on OK."

I was like "Yeah that's just the kind of attitude I look for in a person dealing with brides to be."

I used to think "Why do H/R people ask such stupid "pat" questions, when they won't get an honest answer." Well once I did the job I found out, a lot of people WILL give you an honest answer.

Sure a lot of dishonest people will slip through but still....

[Duckster]

Originally Posted by Agent Foxtrot

Can you have a "Gingers need not apply" rule?

That one will get you nailed in short order under the law. But long before the law gets to you, Danny Bonaduce will beat the crap out of you.

[Boyo Jim]

Or Maryann.

[In Winnipeg]

Recently, I have heard of places denying employment because people don't have/don't have enough photo ID.

In some Provinces, the Government Health Card has the owner's picture on it. That should be enough, but apparently a lot of employers want a second piece with a picture. The problem is, not everyone has a driver's licence, and if a person isn't a teenager, they don't need an Age of Majority card, which is usually what one would use to prove they're of age enough to get into a bar or buy booze. The only other piece of Government-issued ID that everyone has to have, the Social Insurance Card, doesn't have a picture on it.

It appears that the reason most employers are using is that with widespread identity theft these days, they want to make sure exactly who they are hiring.

[snowmaster]

Originally Posted by In Winnipeg

Recently, I have heard of places denying employment because people don't have/don't have enough photo ID.

Fortuneately, that's much clearer in the states. ID requirements are spelled ot in lists A, B & C on the I-9. You must have a docment from list A (for most people, a passport) or you must have BOTH one from list B (for most people, a driver's license or state non-drier ID) AND list C (for most people, a social security card)

To the best of my knowledge, It is illegal to require anything in addition, or to specify thast you will only accept certain IDs from those lists. IE, if they meet the ID requirements, such as hvaing a passport, you cannot compel them to produce their social security card.

[In Winnipeg]

Yes, I remember the requirements on the I-9. I worked in Minnesota while I was going to school there back in the mid-90s, and as I recall, all I needed was my Ontario Driver's License (because it had my picture on it) and my Social Security card (which I had because I have dual citizenship).

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by suranyi

You're thinking about this the wrong way. There are illegal reasons to deny eimployment. To some extent, what these are depend on where you are, but in general they include things like race, sex, religion, etc...

You can discriminate one those things if you a very, very, good reason that it's a vital to the job that one be of a certain sex, race, religion, etc. For example a school (public or private) might require a PE teacher to be of a certain sex since part of their job involves supervising their students in the lockerroom. Or Hooters where part of their business model involves large breasted women in skimpy uniforms serving food; they can insist on only hiring attractive women as waitresses or hostesses, but would run into major problems if they tried that with kitchen staff or coporate office jobs.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Duckster

That one will get you nailed in short order under the law. But long before the law gets to you, Danny Bonaduce will beat the crap out of you.

being red headed is not protected in the US, it is perfectly fine to refuse to hire gingers, or to preference gingers if that is how you roll.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Agent Foxtrot

What are some legal reasons you are allowed to deny employment to someone? Obviously merit, work experience, training, education, etc., but what are some other reasons, either fair or unfair, that it is legal to deny a person a job?

For example, can you deny employment to everyone named Jack? Can you have a "Gingers need not apply" rule? What if the applicant was the sister of someone you had a nasty breakup with?

Edit: I'm not asking for any particular reason, nor am I in charge of the hiring or firing at my job. I was just wondering.

I'm really surprised at this question. I'm curious: why did you think there are only certain legal reasons to not hire someone (as opposed to the correct interpretation, that there are only a few illegal reasons to not hire someone)?

[Superhal]

Yes, you can discriminate against anything and anyone not listed on the Equal Opportunity Employment (usually EOE) Act of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The protected classes: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

So, to answer your question, if you wanted to discriminate against Gingers, you could as long as no one could say you were actually discriminating against Irish people.

[Superhal]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

being red headed is not protected in the US, it is perfectly fine to refuse to hire gingers, or to preference gingers if that is how you roll.

What if I only wanted to hire gingers? Would it be legal to verify that the carpet matches the drapes during the interview?

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

being red headed is not protected in the US, it is perfectly fine to refuse to hire gingers, or to preference gingers if that is how you roll.

Not necessarily. If you stated a preference for Gingers then that would give women an unfair advantage over men since that is a female name.

And, as I think of it, if you had a "No Gingers" rule, then the opposite could be said as it would be unfairly discriminating against women. As 0% of men have that name, and say .005% of women have it, then it is skewed against women. I dunno.

[Duckster]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

being red headed is not protected in the US, it is perfectly fine to refuse to hire gingers, or to preference gingers if that is how you roll.

As others have pointed out, someone with "Ginger" hair is reflected in race and national origin, both areas identified in discrimination laws. You could add sex to the mix as well.

[TimeWinder]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Not necessarily. If you stated a preference for Gingers then that would give women an unfair advantage over men since that is a female name.

On the off chance this isn't a whoosh, "Ginger" is euro-speak for "redhead." They don't mean people named "Ginger."

[Yarster]

I always wondered how the 'national origin' thing worked. Let's say everyone from country 'A' historically wants to kill everyone from country 'B' for whatever political, historical, economic, or religious reason you want to select. This could be Serbians and Croatians, Israelis and Palestinians, etc. Now they have immigrated to the U.S. So, here I am as the owner of a business. I have coincidentally hired nine people who are recent immigrants from Country 'A', but when I place a help wanted ad, the only applicants I get for a tenth position are recent immigrants from Country 'B'. Let's assume I am the only one who interviews them and I don't have an opinion about either country or their issues. Does 'national origin' really not matter?

While I would obviously want to let the candidate know, "By the way, your nine co-workers are all from Country 'A'. Will that be a problem?" I would assume no one who desperately needs a job would honestly say "yes". Likewise, I would assume the nine co-workers, if I asked them, wouldn't honestly say "no, we do not want to work with this person even though it is a direct violation of the law". Meanwhile, if I hire this person, I'm likely going to be inviting problems into my business. But, if I tell the candidate up front, then I am also inviting a lawsuit if I don't hire them. The fact that I warned them about their co-workers could be construed as discriminatory, even if I really didn't think they were a good fit for the job. So what is the proper solution, especially if the person tells me or is obviously from Country 'B' based on their dress/appearance, etc.? This is purely hypothetical, of course, but I have wondered about this.

This must come up on places like cruise ships all the time where they have international crews. Yes, I know that just because someone is from a country that historically hates another doesn't mean that they will hate each other on a personal level, but if you mix enough of these folks together, someone is going to get pissed off during an election, soccer game, etc, and all hell may break loose.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Superhal

What if I only wanted to hire gingers?

Sherlock Holmes would get suspicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adv...-Headed_League

[DrDeth]

Criminal record is pretty safe.

[Audrey Levins]

A "Facebook friend" of mine--by which I mean "somebody I've met who isn't actually a friend of mine who requested my friendship on FB"--was recently hired at a strip club.

Three days after starting her job as a cocktail waitress, she was fired; she was told that she's "too old" and had "too many tattoos."

She was hired by the in-house management, but the day she was fired, it was by the owners of the club who came in that night, who don't deal with day-to-day hiring.

She says that she called her lawyer and thinks she has a case...but I find that hard to believe, given that Texas is a "right to work" state wherein I have the right to work for you and quit without notice, and you also have the right to fire me without notice. And if anything, they could claim she was still "on trial" and didn't work out. Three days??

But I'm slightly curious that they told her why they fired her; I think that was foolish on their part. Yes, she's in her forties--which is "old" by strip club standards, even for a waitress--and yes, she is also covered in tats. But she didn't hide either when she was hired.

I realize this is a slight departure from the OP, which is not about being fired, but about not being hired...but it reminded me of this.

Re: the OP, I'm still a bit amazed by Craigslist employment ads, which ask for "recent face and full body shot" pictures of applicants. I guess for some reason I thought that wasn't legal. Obviously I'm wrong....??

[Lynn Bodoni]

I'm still a bit amazed by Craigslist employment ads, which ask for "recent face and full body shot" pictures of applicants. I guess for some reason I thought that wasn't legal. Obviously I'm wrong....??

It's illegal in the US. This doesn't prevent companies from asking for them, or applicants from giving them. However, if an applicant provided photos at a company's request, and then was not hired, I imagine that the applicant could ask the EEOC or some similar agency to look into the matter.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Not necessarily. If you stated a preference for Gingers then that would give women an unfair advantage over men since that is a female name.

And, as I think of it, if you had a "No Gingers" rule, then the opposite could be said as it would be unfairly discriminating against women. As 0% of men have that name, and say .005% of women have it, then it is skewed against women. I dunno.

Ginger is a britishism for redhead, not a name.

Originally Posted by Duckster

As others have pointed out, someone with "Ginger" hair is reflected in race and national origin, both areas identified in discrimination laws. You could add sex to the mix as well.

No, red hair can be dyed as well. I can remember seeing pictures of hair straightened in a manner called 'gassing' by blacks in the 40s and 50s and in the very early 60s that left the hair an odd orangy red color. People dye their hair red, and other colors as well. Anecdotally a black woman at my last job had red extensions or weave or whatever they call it inserted and was told to remove it because it was a screaming non-natural red, unnatural hair colors being barred at work by the appearance policies in place. There are a lot of japanese cosplayers that have their hair dyed unnaturally in reds as well as other colors.

Originally Posted by TimeWinder

On the off chance this isn't a whoosh, "Ginger" is euro-speak for "redhead." They don't mean people named "Ginger."

exactly =)

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Sherlock Holmes would get suspicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adv...-Headed_League

I love that story!

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

It's illegal in the US. This doesn't prevent companies from asking for them, or applicants from giving them. However, if an applicant provided photos at a company's request, and then was not hired, I imagine that the applicant could ask the EEOC or some similar agency to look into the matter.

It is odd, because I understand that a head shot is frequently requested/required in european CVs. I have a friend that is a professional HR person, and she says that if there was a way to remove all mention of age and sex from a CV, they would love it, they have already done it with race. She says you cant really remove age from one, as the dates give it away but it is getting very close to being able to remove all mention of sex from them. Now unless you mention mens clubs memberships, they are getting pretty nonspecific on sex.

[ENugent]

Originally Posted by Audrey Levins

Three days after starting her job as a cocktail waitress, she was fired; she was told that she's "too old" and had "too many tattoos."

She was hired by the in-house management, but the day she was fired, it was by the owners of the club who came in that night, who don't deal with day-to-day hiring.

She says that she called her lawyer and thinks she has a case...but I find that hard to believe, given that Texas is a "right to work" state wherein I have the right to work for you and quit without notice, and you also have the right to fire me without notice. And if anything, they could claim she was still "on trial" and didn't work out. Three days??

It is illegal in the US to discriminate against the old (but not against the young). There is an age cutoff before it applies, but I can't remember what it is - it might be 40, but I'm not sure.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

It is odd, because I understand that a head shot is frequently requested/required in european CVs. I have a friend that is a professional HR person, and she says that if there was a way to remove all mention of age and sex from a CV, they would love it, they have already done it with race. She says you cant really remove age from one, as the dates give it away but it is getting very close to being able to remove all mention of sex from them. Now unless you mention mens clubs memberships, they are getting pretty nonspecific on sex.

It's kind of funny in a twisted way, because in many EU countries it's illegal to base hiring decisions on anything but "ability to do the job" (which includes "ability to get on well with coworkers and other people you work with" and may include "having the looks required by the role"), and the EU's own Standard CV Format has spaces for things like DoB, Gender, and Head Shot, but all of them with a line that says something like "discriminating based on this may be illegal".

In recent years, I've started seeing companies state "please do NOT include a head shot in your CV". I like those, it may be true or not but it sounds like they are at least making an effort to qualify people based on ability and not on whether they wear dreadlocks or have freckles.

You would be able to remove age from a CV by not making listing degrees a requirement; even in that case, someone who went to college and started work late in life will seem younger than they are.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Nava

It's kind of funny in a twisted way, because in many EU countries it's illegal to base hiring decisions on anything but "ability to do the job" (which includes "ability to get on well with coworkers and other people you work with" and may include "having the looks required by the role"),

So, a felony record would be OK? In fact a record for robbing banks would show banking expereince?

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

It's illegal in the US.

Cite?

[Sternvogel]

Originally Posted by jtgain

And, as I think of it, if you had a "No Gingers" rule, then the opposite could be said as it would be unfairly discriminating against women. As 0% of men have that name, and say .005% of women have it, then it is skewed against women. I dunno.

Mister Baker would like a word with you.

[Billdo]

Originally Posted by Audrey Levins

A "Facebook friend" of mine--by which I mean "somebody I've met who isn't actually a friend of mine who requested my friendship on FB"--was recently hired at a strip club.

Three days after starting her job as a cocktail waitress, she was fired; she was told that she's "too old" and had "too many tattoos." . . .

But I'm slightly curious that they told her why they fired her; I think that was foolish on their part. Yes, she's in her forties--which is "old" by strip club standards, even for a waitress--and yes, she is also covered in tats. But she didn't hide either when she was hired.

Under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age with regard to persons who are 40 or older, but not younger persons.

What that means, oddly enough, is that it probably is illegal under federal law to fire a stripper who is in her forties because of their age, while it would be just fine to fire 39 year old stripper on that basis. (see here.) Your friend may indeed have a case.

In addition, state or local laws may be more protective. For instance, the New York Human Rights Law prohibits all age discrimination for all ages.