In 2019, most employers should know that is illegal to express a racial preference when hiring for a position.
Yet, late last month a Northern Virginia tech-staffing company posted on LinkedIn that it was seeking candidates for an open position, adding as a qualification as “preferably Caucasian who has good technical background.”
When called out on social media, the co-CEO of Cynet Systems apologized, characterizing the post as a “terrible mistake” and promising that the recruiter would be “undergoing re-training to uphold high standards” they claim to have set internally.
The CEO’s response did little to quell the social media outrage over the job posting, especially given that the staffing firm is certified as a minority business enterprise.
While the executive can call the “preferably Caucasian” post an innocent mistake, it exposes the sad reality that discrimination and illegal preferences in hiring still exist in 2019.
In this case, the discriminatory preference was inadvertently made obvious. Typically, discriminatory intent is kept hidden.
Federal discrimination laws prohibit using race, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, color, religion, disability, age (40 and over) or genetic information to make a hiring decision, among others.
Employers will develop a set of characteristics of the prospective candidates, and these may include age preferences, or those for gender, race and other improper characteristics.
Sometimes, employers believe that hiring someone with a specific demographic satisfies a need for “diversity” within the organization. While organizations can, and should, cast a wide net to find candidates that represent a diverse set of characteristics, they cannot use those demographics as a basis for their decision-making.
In addition, quotas and preferences are generally illegal, other than some government set-aside rules for veterans and qualified disabled individuals.
Hiring decisions must be made using a set of legitimate non-discriminatory criteria, and the basis for determining skills, knowledge and abilities need to be job-related.
For example, a participant in one of my training classes expressed concern over her team’s aging workforce, stating that her business needs included succession-planning and transitioning to a younger workforce that can carry-out long-term objectives. She inquired if, given the organizational need, she could specifically recruit for a younger set of hires.
While it is understandable that she correctly identified a need for succession planning, the law would prohibit her from seeking out and hiring only younger candidates. Discrimination cannot be the basis for a legitimate business need.
Sometimes employers seek to avoid a certain demographic because of a previous Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge or lawsuit that the employer or manager felt was unjust. Some employers, for example, fear hiring women due to the #MeToo movement and fears of a claim for sexual harassment.
Irrational fears like this lead to a perpetuation of discrimination in the workplace.
Employers should make sure that all hiring managers receive the necessary training on how to prepare for and conduct a legitimate non-discriminatory recruiting process.
Individuals interviewing candidates should not ask questions designed to illicit information that would not be job-related. Hiring managers need to document the basis for their hiring decisions, which should not include any comment on the demographic of the individual.
Human resources professionals, including recruiters, should avoid being influenced by a hiring manager pressuring the HR professional to steer a particular demographic for a potential new hire.
Those in the position of hiring and company executives should avoid such practices. They should not even discuss any demographic preference organizationally so as to avoid inadvertently noted preferences or consideration.