image courtesy of Gan Golan and Erich Origen via Laughing Squid
There’s some potentially good news on the horizon for unemployed job seekers – they may soon be protected from discrimination in hiring and compensation by Title VII.
Yesterday, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga) introduced legislation that would amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, making it illegal for employers to refuse to hire or to lower compensation because of employment status. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Rep. Johnson stated:
I just thought about how unfair that was, to discriminate against people who had lost their jobs due to no fault of their own, who were just victims of corporate downsizing during a tough economy, and then to be penalized for having that status is very unfair. It reminded me of the days when blacks were told to not apply for jobs, when job ads said ‘No women allowed.’ This really affected me, and I decided that there was something that we could do.
Johnson said he expects his bill – The Fair Employment Act of 2011 (H.R. 1113) - to receive bipartisan support since unemployment remains near the 10% mark. because unemployment is still soaring at 9.5 percent, and every lawmaker’s constituents could use the protection.
Under The Fair Employment Act of 2011 (H.R. 1113), the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff to show that he was discriminated against based on employment status. Rep. Johnson indicated that ”the state of the law is pretty tough on claimants in Title VII cases to prevail, but nevertheless, we do have successful claimants, and this legislation will simply put employers on notice that it’s not in their best interest to run ads saying ‘no unemployed people need apply,’ or other things such as that that would show that they are prejudiced against the unemployed.”
Last month, the EEOC held a hearing to examine the impact of only considering employed applicants for job vacancies. A summary of the expert testimony provided during the hearing was summarized in the February 25th installment of The Proactive Employer Podcast. One of the key points of the testimony centered on the fact that women, racial and ethnic minorities, and individuals with disabilities are more likely to be unemployed, and therefore the practice of excluding unemployed candidates from applicant pools has a disparate impact on these groups. The testimony also highlighted that the extent of discrimination against the unemployed is not really known. Christine Owens’ testimony indicated that the problem was pervasive and widespread. On the other hand, the testimony of Fernan Cepero and James Urban indicated that the practice is not widespread and the accounts of “unemployed need not apply” advertisements that have been sensationalized in the media are isolated incidents.
There are a lot of unanswered questions about whether employers are actually discriminating against unemployed candidates. The EEOC hearing placed a spotlight on the issue, and Rep. Johnson’s proposed legislation will intensify that spotlight. But one thing is clear – unemployment is still a problem. According to Rep. Johnson:
We’ve got people from all demographics who are afflicted with the scourge of unemployment. We’ve got fourteen million Americans unemployed right now, and this legislation helps to protect their right to work.
HR 1113 is not about black or white, it is about the American Worker. Many Republicans are against funding unemployment benefits, yet fail to see discriminating against those who are seeking employment, only adds to the cost. Contact your Representatives and tell them to support HR1113.
I think it is a bad idea to ban the practice. Employers will just do it in secret. An employer that advertises that they won’t consider unemployed applicants gives valuable insight into the company itself and allows job seekers to steer clear of companies that have questionable ethics and a culture that probably turns a blind eye to discriminatory practices.
This would be difficult to prove. Companies will grant you an interview but then either not contact you with their decision, or if you follow up, just say that the position is filled. Since so many applications are on-line, you never know if they received your application and most of the time you never hear anything, but you still see the job posted. There is also a lot of age discrimination going on, similarly difficult to prove.