Company wanted diversity — now they’re out 100K
October 9, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Assessing the right candidate, Law, Special Report
Employers and managers often wish to build up a diverse workforce, and that’s a good thing. But a recent court ruling sends a powerful message: Discrimination is illegal no matter what form it takes.
One woman, who is white, sued the company after she applied for a job and was turned down. She had plenty of relevant experience and met all of the job’s requirements.
When she went to interview, she claimed she heard the hiring manager say to someone else, “We need more African-Americans.”
In the end, an African-American woman was hired — even though she was less qualified, according to the unsuccessful applicant. Moreover, the woman who was hired did not answer all the questions on the application and was not put through the same interview process.
In court, the judge sided with the woman. The hiring manager’s comment about needing more diversity, combined with the woman’s greater qualifications, were enough evidence that she was turned down because of her race.
The company had to pay a total of $99,500.
Diversity, the wrong way
The lesson of this case is clear: “Reverse discrimination” is still discrimination.
Companies with diversity goals should focus on attracting a diverse group of applicants, while still hiring the most qualified candidate.
And, of course, hiring managers must be careful about comments they make during the hiring process.
Cite: Vitullo v. Borough of Yeadon
Tags: bias, Hiring, reverse discrimination
October 10th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
This is not a case of ‘reverse discrimination’ at all. This is ‘discrimination’ against her due to her race. If we continue to call a ‘white’ person being discriminated against as ‘reverse discrimination’ then we ourselves are racist. We are all people and need to treat each other as such with out regard to race, religion, age, etc.. Lets start today!!
October 10th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
There is no such thing as reverse discrimination.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
It is foolish for anyone to use the term, “Reverse discrimination”. It implies that only one type of person can be discriminated against.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Your article speaks of diversity, yet your picture portrays only a very “youth based” workforce. Not to be snide but a diverse work force covers a relatively broad spectrum and I would have thought the photo could have depicted a senior or two.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I highly doubt the “older” part of the work force could step away from their golf outings and upper level management meeting long enough to take the photo.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:52 am
I agree, discrimination is discrimination. “Reverse discrimination” is a term that should not be used.