Who won this case: Did race get them rejected?
April 17, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Assessing the right candidate, In This Week's E-Newsletter, Latest News & Views, Law
Recruiters have to sift through boatloads of resumes, and a good chunk always has to end up in the trash. What happens when a recruiter’s asked to prove those decisions weren’t racially motivated? Read the case and decide: Who won?
The facts: A group of African-American applicants sued a retail company, claiming they were turned down for jobs because of their race. One applicant in particular said she first applied under her own name and was turned down when she asked to schedule an interview. She then applied again under a fake, Caucasian-sounding name with a less impressive resume and was asked to interview.
The employer said: Since none of the applicants had interviewed with the company, the recruiter and hiring manager had no way of knowing their race. They simply picked the candidates who looked the most qualified and scheduled interviews with them. The people they asked to interview just had more relevant experience, they said.
Who won the case?
Answer: The job applicants.
Why: The recruiter may not have seen the candidates in person, but all the resumes in question had info that could have indicated the candidates race. For example, one had graduated from an all-black college. Another said she had been a member of an African-American sorority.
The kicker was that the company didnt document the reasons the applicants were rejected. It had a policy to save all the resumes it received for at least a year, but the ones in question were simply marked not qualified, without anything more specific.
The court said they may have been rejected for legitimate reasons, but without documentation, the waters were murky enough to send the case to a jury for trial. Making more specifics notes on why the resumes were rejected for example, not enough work experience could have saved the company a lot of trouble.
Cite: E.E.O.C. v. Target Corp.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Are you kidding me? It could have been for ANY reason. Maybe the handwriting was sloppy or there was misspelled words. To call it a racial issue is ludacrous…we’re not getting anywhere!
November 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I know this was discussed forever ago but I was outraged by the two incredibly shallow answers. First of all this isn’t a law suit over nothing, to say that is implying if companies choose their candidates based only on the sound of the names on one is being hurt. Yes, ethnic people sometimes have ethnic names such as Omar a African/ Indian name. Many other names that people think of as ethnic have African origin, black people sometimes use these to revive or hold on to what little heritage that hasn’t been striped away through slavery. Allowing this is allowing discrimination! Second, rules such as “why didn’t you hire a candidate?” are put into place to be sure the company gives some deep thought about how it hires. Thirdly, one person stated that she presented her resume under a “white” name with less experience and I’m sure the same hand writing and she said she got an interview. Now, this is hearsay in court but if it was indeed true then the company is simply racist and you both (Dave and Beryl) are protecting the right to discriminate against people of color and people with ethnic names by any means possible even just a name. I’m glad these people took time and money to do this as it may protect many others from this type of discrimination. By the way Dave, racism and hate in general will never, NEVER, be behind us and all people should always do what they can against this sad fact. Pretending like its not there only works for imaginary pink elephants not racism so faking like if we all just stop talking about it will make it go away makes you seem semi-retard. Beryl, money is the only thing that hurts these companies so hitting their pocket as punishment is the only way they learn. They aren’t doing it just for the money but to hurt the enemy. You make it seem the same as the people who sued McDonald’s for making them fat! However, even that case made McDonald’s start offering food that won’t kill you in 5 years and those people didn’t even win that case. You all should think things through before you respond.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:09 am
I know this was ages ago, but agree with Darkslyphide. I think it’s wishful thinking and pure ignorance to believe that the employer didn’t know or rather assumed from some of the applicant’s names that they were Black. It is human nature to make those types of assumptions, but to act on them is wrong and irresponsible.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
What it came down to in the court was the company did not provide sufficient documentation of their reasoning and that brought them down. Some people assume the dark motives are always there regardless of facts. There was no factual basis that the company discriminated but they couldn’t prove it. The company deserves to be penalized for failing to follow sound procedures. Cases like this make it more difficult everyday to work in benefits and HR because they invite additional intrusion from the government. That is the worst aspect of the result.