Job Posting: 'sexy FEMALE marketing admin'

[xiix]

"If you are career minded, dont mind an entry level admin position to start at and support marketing, PA and office admin tasks, then contact me. I am looking for someone who is hardwaorking, dedicated, loyal, trustworthy, smart, and open minded enough to have fun at the job… email pics, res, and salary expectations "
from http://toronto.craigslist.org/mar/205271745.html

So umm, so is this not incredibly illegal? Or just highly unethical?

[Lamb_Chop]

depends on what state the company calls home and how many employees it has. If it has over 15 emps, it’s subject to enforcement action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which case yes, it’s probably violating the law by specifying sex, implicitly specifying age, and (I think) requiring a photo as a condition for hiring. That’s the federal law; some states like California might have more stringent non-discrimination laws on top of that.

OTOH, if it’s just some guy who thinks he’s found a clever way to troll for hot chicks, I dunno.

[Lamb_Chop]

Also, anyone employed by the company now or in the future can point to that ad as evidence of a “hostile work environment”, I believe, if they want to bring their own harassment or discrimination suit.

[Savannah]

1. It may be in Toronto, Canada.

2. The “employer” posting needs to proofread his post. Maybe his new sexy secretary can do that in the future.

3. I have nothing againt “sexy secretaries” – it’s one of my favourite fantasies. However, sexual fantasies and real-life employement scenarios generally tend to be two different matters.

[guizot]

In California it would definately be a no-no. But Craigslist has gotten away with such things in the past.

[Savannah]

Againt = against.

I, too, should proofread.

[Rigamarole]

@Savannah

2. The “employer” posting needs to proofread his post. Maybe his new sexy secretary can do that in the future.

3. I have nothing againt “sexy secretaries”

@Savannah

Againt = against.

I, too, should proofread.

What, my friends, is the moral of this story?

I’ll tell you. It’s that we all need sexy secretaries.

[twickster]

@Rigamarole

What, my friends, is the moral of this story?

I’ll tell you. It’s that we all need sexy secretaries.

Make sure mine has six-pack abs, pls.

[Harriet_the_Spry]

**Lamb Chop ** has given a good answer for the US, but the posting does seem to be for Canada. Canadopers?

[GorillaMan]

@the advert

email pics, res, and salary expectations

Errrrr, in that order?

[Canadjun]

Looks like the ad was pulled, but looking at the Ontario Human Rights Commission hiring information (since the link seemed to pertain to Toronto), the answer would seem to be no.

[Sunspace]

It’s definitely a GTA (Greater Toronto Area) post.

I imagine the Ministry of Labour would have a few things to say about this.

Hmm… the Ministry of Labour’s website pointed me to the Human Rights Commission. According to the [url=“Human Rights at Work 2008 - Third Edition | Ontario Human Rights Commission”]Human Rights Code
[/quote]
:

Job advertisements cannot directly or indirectly ask about race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status or handicap.

So it appears that asking for a specifially-female employee is out.

As for the “sexy” part, I don’t know. I can imagine jobs whose duties would require a specific appearance or demeanour (from actors to strippers), but I don’t know how that would fall under the Code. Would a casting director who said, “I need a middle-aged South Asian man for this role.” be guilty of illiegal discrimination?

[Chronos]

As for the “sexy” part, I don’t know. I can imagine jobs whose duties would require a specific appearance or demeanour (from actors to strippers), but I don’t know how that would fall under the Code. Would a casting director who said, “I need a middle-aged South Asian man for this role.” be guilty of illiegal discrimination?

I think that the generally-used yardstick is whether the particular quality is germane to the job. For an acting job, race, sex, and other aspects of appearance are germane to the job, but for a secretary, you’d have a hard time making that case. You could probably ask for “good people skills”, or something along those lines, but that’s not exactly the same thing as “sexy”.

[guizot]

In the U.S., they probably could’ve gotten away with the ad if they hadn’t mentioned “FEMALE” (in capital letters, no less). I don’t think there’s anything with the EOE against hiring for “sexiness.”

“Job requirements: type 50 WPM, familar with MS Office, and sexy. Bi-lingual a plus.”

If you can descriminate on typing speed, can you descriminate on “sexiness”? A man can be sexy just as much as a woman.

[Throatwarbler_Mangrove]

In Canada the key word is always BFOR, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement. If a BFOR can be proven in front of the courts then an exception will be made even if it were a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Quick and dirty link

6. BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL REQUIREMENT EXCEPTION

The legislation recognizes that there may indeed be legitimate reasons for employment discrimination on prohibited grounds. For example, an individual’s record of criminal offences may be relevant where a person is applying for work as a security officer. Accordingly, the Code provides an exemption for discrimination based upon age, sex, record of offences or marital status where it is reasonable and a bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment.The meaning of this exemption was discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Etobicoke (Borough) v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission). In that case, the court was required to decide whether the fire department policy requiring mandatory retirement at age 60 constituted a bona fide occupational requirement. The court noted that once a prima facie case of discrimination had been established, the burden of proof shifted to the employer to show that the discrimination was justified. The court went on to hold that the qualification must be imposed honestly and in good faith and not used by the employer to circumvent the provisions of the Code. Examples where a bona fide occupational requirement may be lawfully imposed by an employer would include situations where there may be danger to the employee, other employees or the general public.In Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co. the employee, a religious Sikh, refused to wear a hard hat because his religion prohibited him from using any headwear other than his turban. The Supreme Court held that the hard hat requirement was a reasonable and bona fide requirement aimed at protecting the health of the worker. The hard hat rule was therefore a reasonable and justified working requirement even though it infringed on the worker’s religious rights.While the bona fide occupational requirement exception to employment related discrimination is expressly provided for in the Human Rights Code, it is clear that courts and human rights tribunals will require compelling, objective evidence to satisfy them that the rule or policy in question falls within this limited exception. Good intentions on the part of the employer will not suffice.

From the OHRC:

The test for determining whether an occupational requirement is bona fide was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Etobicoke (Borough) [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202. The Court established that for a requirement to be considered as bona fide, two conditions must be met. First, there must be an objective relationship between the standards required and the job in question. Second, the standards must have been imposed in good faith.

If the employer is willing and able to prove that being a sexy female is a BFOR, then he’s free to advertise for one and fire any employees that no longer fit the BFOR even if it violated the Charter.

[GorillaMan]

Hijack - interesting to hear about how the issues of Sikh turbans are dealt with in various places. In Britain, Sikhs are exempt from otherwise-obligatory motorcycle helmets.

[Little_Nemo]

Personally, the ad in the OP was so strange I’m wondering if there was an ulterior motive. Perhaps, for example, a person referring to some other ad that might have asked for “sexy FEMALE bartender” or something like that. I could see one person placing such an ad and a second person placing a parody ad to prove some point.

[DrDeth]

If one was asking for a “sexy female” to be a stripper at a gentlemans club, I’d think that’d be OK. As a secretary- not so much.

I *think *it’s OK to ask for a *receptionist *to be “physically attractive”, but that’d have to include handsome male applicants also.

[Sunspace]

@GorillaMan

Hijack - interesting to hear about how the issues of Sikh turbans are dealt with in various places. In Britain, Sikhs are exempt from otherwise-obligatory motorcycle helmets.

They designed special turbans for Sikh police officers here. A police officer in a turban is quite handsome, actually.

[A.R.Cane]

@twickster

Make sure mine has six-pack abs, pls.

I’ve got a beer barrel ab, will that work for ya’?