Mixing
Is it okay to filter out applications based on certain criteria?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
My boss has me collect the submitted applications to our workplace and forward them along to hiring managers.
Recently he's been having me automatically filter out applications based on the following criteria:
- Remove the application if the applicant did not graduate high school or has a GED.
- Remove the application if the applicant does not have a driver's license or reliable transportation.
I would like to know whether or not this is ethical. And though I know this is not the place for law-related questions, is this legal in the US?
Either way, are there any other criteria that would be illegal or unethical by which we would filter out applications?
hiring-process applications
asked May 9 '14 at 20:01
Moses
8951325
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
My boss has me collect the submitted applications to our workplace and forward them along to hiring managers.
Recently he's been having me automatically filter out applications based on the following criteria:
- Remove the application if the applicant did not graduate high school or has a GED.
- Remove the application if the applicant does not have a driver's license or reliable transportation.
I would like to know whether or not this is ethical. And though I know this is not the place for law-related questions, is this legal in the US?
Either way, are there any other criteria that would be illegal or unethical by which we would filter out applications?
hiring-process applications
asked May 9 '14 at 20:01
Moses
8951325
1
Does your application ask these questions? (I can't remember the last time an application asked for my high school, and I've never been asked about my driver's license. But I'm not applying for positions as a driver...)
– Monica Cellio♦
May 9 '14 at 22:07
@MonicaCellio It's a position for a gas station cashier, so..yeah...haha
– Moses
May 10 '14 at 1:31
1
I'd suggest that it's at least somewhat unethical to lump the people who have a GED in the same boat as the people who did not graduate high school and do not have a GED. The whole point of getting a GED is to show that you have the same sort of knowledge and skills that are required for graduating from high school.
– aroth
May 10 '14 at 3:40
2
Did you mean "did not graduate high school or has a GED" or "did not graduate high school or have a GED" as they are very different in meaning.
– HorusKol
May 12 '14 at 2:22
@HorusKol if the applicant didn't complete high school in the typical fashion (either they didn't graduate at all, or they got a GED instead of a diploma), my boss is not interested in hiring them.
– Moses
May 12 '14 at 2:38
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
My boss has me collect the submitted applications to our workplace and forward them along to hiring managers.
Recently he's been having me automatically filter out applications based on the following criteria:
- Remove the application if the applicant did not graduate high school or has a GED.
- Remove the application if the applicant does not have a driver's license or reliable transportation.
I would like to know whether or not this is ethical. And though I know this is not the place for law-related questions, is this legal in the US?
Either way, are there any other criteria that would be illegal or unethical by which we would filter out applications?
hiring-process applications
asked May 9 '14 at 20:01
Moses
8951325
My boss has me collect the submitted applications to our workplace and forward them along to hiring managers.
Recently he's been having me automatically filter out applications based on the following criteria:
- Remove the application if the applicant did not graduate high school or has a GED.
- Remove the application if the applicant does not have a driver's license or reliable transportation.
I would like to know whether or not this is ethical. And though I know this is not the place for law-related questions, is this legal in the US?
Either way, are there any other criteria that would be illegal or unethical by which we would filter out applications?
hiring-process applications
asked May 9 '14 at 20:01
Moses
8951325
asked May 9 '14 at 20:01
Moses
8951325
asked May 9 '14 at 20:01
Moses
8951325
asked May 9 '14 at 20:01
Moses
8951325
8951325
1
Does your application ask these questions? (I can't remember the last time an application asked for my high school, and I've never been asked about my driver's license. But I'm not applying for positions as a driver...)
– Monica Cellio♦
May 9 '14 at 22:07
@MonicaCellio It's a position for a gas station cashier, so..yeah...haha
– Moses
May 10 '14 at 1:31
1
I'd suggest that it's at least somewhat unethical to lump the people who have a GED in the same boat as the people who did not graduate high school and do not have a GED. The whole point of getting a GED is to show that you have the same sort of knowledge and skills that are required for graduating from high school.
– aroth
May 10 '14 at 3:40
2
Did you mean "did not graduate high school or has a GED" or "did not graduate high school or have a GED" as they are very different in meaning.
– HorusKol
May 12 '14 at 2:22
@HorusKol if the applicant didn't complete high school in the typical fashion (either they didn't graduate at all, or they got a GED instead of a diploma), my boss is not interested in hiring them.
– Moses
May 12 '14 at 2:38
add a comment |Â
1
Does your application ask these questions? (I can't remember the last time an application asked for my high school, and I've never been asked about my driver's license. But I'm not applying for positions as a driver...)
– Monica Cellio♦
May 9 '14 at 22:07
@MonicaCellio It's a position for a gas station cashier, so..yeah...haha
– Moses
May 10 '14 at 1:31
1
I'd suggest that it's at least somewhat unethical to lump the people who have a GED in the same boat as the people who did not graduate high school and do not have a GED. The whole point of getting a GED is to show that you have the same sort of knowledge and skills that are required for graduating from high school.
– aroth
May 10 '14 at 3:40
2
Did you mean "did not graduate high school or has a GED" or "did not graduate high school or have a GED" as they are very different in meaning.
– HorusKol
May 12 '14 at 2:22
@HorusKol if the applicant didn't complete high school in the typical fashion (either they didn't graduate at all, or they got a GED instead of a diploma), my boss is not interested in hiring them.
– Moses
May 12 '14 at 2:38
1
1
Does your application ask these questions? (I can't remember the last time an application asked for my high school, and I've never been asked about my driver's license. But I'm not applying for positions as a driver...)
– Monica Cellio♦
May 9 '14 at 22:07
Does your application ask these questions? (I can't remember the last time an application asked for my high school, and I've never been asked about my driver's license. But I'm not applying for positions as a driver...)
– Monica Cellio♦
May 9 '14 at 22:07
@MonicaCellio It's a position for a gas station cashier, so..yeah...haha
– Moses
May 10 '14 at 1:31
@MonicaCellio It's a position for a gas station cashier, so..yeah...haha
– Moses
May 10 '14 at 1:31
1
1
I'd suggest that it's at least somewhat unethical to lump the people who have a GED in the same boat as the people who did not graduate high school and do not have a GED. The whole point of getting a GED is to show that you have the same sort of knowledge and skills that are required for graduating from high school.
– aroth
May 10 '14 at 3:40
I'd suggest that it's at least somewhat unethical to lump the people who have a GED in the same boat as the people who did not graduate high school and do not have a GED. The whole point of getting a GED is to show that you have the same sort of knowledge and skills that are required for graduating from high school.
– aroth
May 10 '14 at 3:40
2
2
Did you mean "did not graduate high school or has a GED" or "did not graduate high school or have a GED" as they are very different in meaning.
– HorusKol
May 12 '14 at 2:22
Did you mean "did not graduate high school or has a GED" or "did not graduate high school or have a GED" as they are very different in meaning.
– HorusKol
May 12 '14 at 2:22
@HorusKol if the applicant didn't complete high school in the typical fashion (either they didn't graduate at all, or they got a GED instead of a diploma), my boss is not interested in hiring them.
– Moses
May 12 '14 at 2:38
@HorusKol if the applicant didn't complete high school in the typical fashion (either they didn't graduate at all, or they got a GED instead of a diploma), my boss is not interested in hiring them.
– Moses
May 12 '14 at 2:38
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Employers can ask for minimal educational requirements. And they can expect you to have a car if you need to drive for your job. I don't think either of these things is problematic in itself, but if someone were able to demonstrate that your employer was using those limiters to exclude people of a protected class, that would be problematic.
You asked for an example of a filter you cannot use, and one would be age. If your employer asked you to filter out anyone who graduated college or high school before a certain year, that could be a problem, as you cannot discriminate against someone over 40 just for being over 40.
From the EEOC:
Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.
The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age.
answered May 9 '14 at 23:11
MJ6
4,063820
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The discrimination as described in 1. and 2. is legal in the US. You can discriminate on looks, shoe size, food habits, use of foul language, etc. Just don't discriminate against the classes protected by the relevant Civil Rights legislation, to wit: race, color, ethnic origin, religion, gender, certain disabilities, etc. Having said that, I am afraid that the impact of the Civil Rights legislation is kind of blunted in right-to-work states. I could fire you for example based on your skin color and get away with it as long as I clam up about the real reason why I fired you.
answered May 9 '14 at 20:26
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
1
Well #1 could be considered to discriminate against dyslexics on disability grounds as could #2 ie some one who is unable to drive for medical reasons poor eyesight or epilepsy. Does the job require driving in that case you could discriminate in this way. Ask your HR team is one solution.
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 20:52
@Pepone My understanding of ADA is that the employer must make "reasonable" accommodations for those individuals who suffer from a disability but who could otherwise be gainfully employed. I don't really want to say much more because I am not a lawyer and I certainly don't want to say anything that might be considered misleading or ignorant as to how ADA is complied with. And in fact, I don't dare to and I don't care to dare to :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 20:58
@VietnhiPhuvan quite you have to be able to justify the discrimination eg a delivery driver has to be able to drive but an office worker normally doesn't
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 21:02
@Pepone In NYC, not too many people need to drive, so the public transport system is a fantastic accommodation :) The same can't be said if both the handicapped individual and the employer are situated in the boondocks of GA, and the employer has a limited budget for making any kind of accommodations to anyone. Again, I am not a lawyer and I am totally unqualified to give more than super general responses :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 21:08
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Employers can ask for minimal educational requirements. And they can expect you to have a car if you need to drive for your job. I don't think either of these things is problematic in itself, but if someone were able to demonstrate that your employer was using those limiters to exclude people of a protected class, that would be problematic.
You asked for an example of a filter you cannot use, and one would be age. If your employer asked you to filter out anyone who graduated college or high school before a certain year, that could be a problem, as you cannot discriminate against someone over 40 just for being over 40.
From the EEOC:
Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.
The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age.
answered May 9 '14 at 23:11
MJ6
4,063820
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Employers can ask for minimal educational requirements. And they can expect you to have a car if you need to drive for your job. I don't think either of these things is problematic in itself, but if someone were able to demonstrate that your employer was using those limiters to exclude people of a protected class, that would be problematic.
You asked for an example of a filter you cannot use, and one would be age. If your employer asked you to filter out anyone who graduated college or high school before a certain year, that could be a problem, as you cannot discriminate against someone over 40 just for being over 40.
From the EEOC:
Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.
The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age.
answered May 9 '14 at 23:11
MJ6
4,063820
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Employers can ask for minimal educational requirements. And they can expect you to have a car if you need to drive for your job. I don't think either of these things is problematic in itself, but if someone were able to demonstrate that your employer was using those limiters to exclude people of a protected class, that would be problematic.
You asked for an example of a filter you cannot use, and one would be age. If your employer asked you to filter out anyone who graduated college or high school before a certain year, that could be a problem, as you cannot discriminate against someone over 40 just for being over 40.
From the EEOC:
Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.
The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age.
answered May 9 '14 at 23:11
MJ6
4,063820
Employers can ask for minimal educational requirements. And they can expect you to have a car if you need to drive for your job. I don't think either of these things is problematic in itself, but if someone were able to demonstrate that your employer was using those limiters to exclude people of a protected class, that would be problematic.
You asked for an example of a filter you cannot use, and one would be age. If your employer asked you to filter out anyone who graduated college or high school before a certain year, that could be a problem, as you cannot discriminate against someone over 40 just for being over 40.
From the EEOC:
Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.
The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age.
answered May 9 '14 at 23:11
MJ6
4,063820
edited May 9 '14 at 23:21
answered May 9 '14 at 23:11
MJ6
4,063820
answered May 9 '14 at 23:11
MJ6
4,063820
answered May 9 '14 at 23:11
MJ6
4,063820
4,063820
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The discrimination as described in 1. and 2. is legal in the US. You can discriminate on looks, shoe size, food habits, use of foul language, etc. Just don't discriminate against the classes protected by the relevant Civil Rights legislation, to wit: race, color, ethnic origin, religion, gender, certain disabilities, etc. Having said that, I am afraid that the impact of the Civil Rights legislation is kind of blunted in right-to-work states. I could fire you for example based on your skin color and get away with it as long as I clam up about the real reason why I fired you.
answered May 9 '14 at 20:26
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
1
Well #1 could be considered to discriminate against dyslexics on disability grounds as could #2 ie some one who is unable to drive for medical reasons poor eyesight or epilepsy. Does the job require driving in that case you could discriminate in this way. Ask your HR team is one solution.
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 20:52
@Pepone My understanding of ADA is that the employer must make "reasonable" accommodations for those individuals who suffer from a disability but who could otherwise be gainfully employed. I don't really want to say much more because I am not a lawyer and I certainly don't want to say anything that might be considered misleading or ignorant as to how ADA is complied with. And in fact, I don't dare to and I don't care to dare to :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 20:58
@VietnhiPhuvan quite you have to be able to justify the discrimination eg a delivery driver has to be able to drive but an office worker normally doesn't
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 21:02
@Pepone In NYC, not too many people need to drive, so the public transport system is a fantastic accommodation :) The same can't be said if both the handicapped individual and the employer are situated in the boondocks of GA, and the employer has a limited budget for making any kind of accommodations to anyone. Again, I am not a lawyer and I am totally unqualified to give more than super general responses :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 21:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The discrimination as described in 1. and 2. is legal in the US. You can discriminate on looks, shoe size, food habits, use of foul language, etc. Just don't discriminate against the classes protected by the relevant Civil Rights legislation, to wit: race, color, ethnic origin, religion, gender, certain disabilities, etc. Having said that, I am afraid that the impact of the Civil Rights legislation is kind of blunted in right-to-work states. I could fire you for example based on your skin color and get away with it as long as I clam up about the real reason why I fired you.
answered May 9 '14 at 20:26
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
1
Well #1 could be considered to discriminate against dyslexics on disability grounds as could #2 ie some one who is unable to drive for medical reasons poor eyesight or epilepsy. Does the job require driving in that case you could discriminate in this way. Ask your HR team is one solution.
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 20:52
@Pepone My understanding of ADA is that the employer must make "reasonable" accommodations for those individuals who suffer from a disability but who could otherwise be gainfully employed. I don't really want to say much more because I am not a lawyer and I certainly don't want to say anything that might be considered misleading or ignorant as to how ADA is complied with. And in fact, I don't dare to and I don't care to dare to :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 20:58
@VietnhiPhuvan quite you have to be able to justify the discrimination eg a delivery driver has to be able to drive but an office worker normally doesn't
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 21:02
@Pepone In NYC, not too many people need to drive, so the public transport system is a fantastic accommodation :) The same can't be said if both the handicapped individual and the employer are situated in the boondocks of GA, and the employer has a limited budget for making any kind of accommodations to anyone. Again, I am not a lawyer and I am totally unqualified to give more than super general responses :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 21:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The discrimination as described in 1. and 2. is legal in the US. You can discriminate on looks, shoe size, food habits, use of foul language, etc. Just don't discriminate against the classes protected by the relevant Civil Rights legislation, to wit: race, color, ethnic origin, religion, gender, certain disabilities, etc. Having said that, I am afraid that the impact of the Civil Rights legislation is kind of blunted in right-to-work states. I could fire you for example based on your skin color and get away with it as long as I clam up about the real reason why I fired you.
answered May 9 '14 at 20:26
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
The discrimination as described in 1. and 2. is legal in the US. You can discriminate on looks, shoe size, food habits, use of foul language, etc. Just don't discriminate against the classes protected by the relevant Civil Rights legislation, to wit: race, color, ethnic origin, religion, gender, certain disabilities, etc. Having said that, I am afraid that the impact of the Civil Rights legislation is kind of blunted in right-to-work states. I could fire you for example based on your skin color and get away with it as long as I clam up about the real reason why I fired you.
answered May 9 '14 at 20:26
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
answered May 9 '14 at 20:26
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
answered May 9 '14 at 20:26
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
answered May 9 '14 at 20:26
Vietnhi Phuvan
68.9k7118254
68.9k7118254
1
Well #1 could be considered to discriminate against dyslexics on disability grounds as could #2 ie some one who is unable to drive for medical reasons poor eyesight or epilepsy. Does the job require driving in that case you could discriminate in this way. Ask your HR team is one solution.
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 20:52
@Pepone My understanding of ADA is that the employer must make "reasonable" accommodations for those individuals who suffer from a disability but who could otherwise be gainfully employed. I don't really want to say much more because I am not a lawyer and I certainly don't want to say anything that might be considered misleading or ignorant as to how ADA is complied with. And in fact, I don't dare to and I don't care to dare to :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 20:58
@VietnhiPhuvan quite you have to be able to justify the discrimination eg a delivery driver has to be able to drive but an office worker normally doesn't
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 21:02
@Pepone In NYC, not too many people need to drive, so the public transport system is a fantastic accommodation :) The same can't be said if both the handicapped individual and the employer are situated in the boondocks of GA, and the employer has a limited budget for making any kind of accommodations to anyone. Again, I am not a lawyer and I am totally unqualified to give more than super general responses :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 21:08
add a comment |Â
1
Well #1 could be considered to discriminate against dyslexics on disability grounds as could #2 ie some one who is unable to drive for medical reasons poor eyesight or epilepsy. Does the job require driving in that case you could discriminate in this way. Ask your HR team is one solution.
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 20:52
@Pepone My understanding of ADA is that the employer must make "reasonable" accommodations for those individuals who suffer from a disability but who could otherwise be gainfully employed. I don't really want to say much more because I am not a lawyer and I certainly don't want to say anything that might be considered misleading or ignorant as to how ADA is complied with. And in fact, I don't dare to and I don't care to dare to :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 20:58
@VietnhiPhuvan quite you have to be able to justify the discrimination eg a delivery driver has to be able to drive but an office worker normally doesn't
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 21:02
@Pepone In NYC, not too many people need to drive, so the public transport system is a fantastic accommodation :) The same can't be said if both the handicapped individual and the employer are situated in the boondocks of GA, and the employer has a limited budget for making any kind of accommodations to anyone. Again, I am not a lawyer and I am totally unqualified to give more than super general responses :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 21:08
1
1
Well #1 could be considered to discriminate against dyslexics on disability grounds as could #2 ie some one who is unable to drive for medical reasons poor eyesight or epilepsy. Does the job require driving in that case you could discriminate in this way. Ask your HR team is one solution.
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 20:52
Well #1 could be considered to discriminate against dyslexics on disability grounds as could #2 ie some one who is unable to drive for medical reasons poor eyesight or epilepsy. Does the job require driving in that case you could discriminate in this way. Ask your HR team is one solution.
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 20:52
@Pepone My understanding of ADA is that the employer must make "reasonable" accommodations for those individuals who suffer from a disability but who could otherwise be gainfully employed. I don't really want to say much more because I am not a lawyer and I certainly don't want to say anything that might be considered misleading or ignorant as to how ADA is complied with. And in fact, I don't dare to and I don't care to dare to :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 20:58
@Pepone My understanding of ADA is that the employer must make "reasonable" accommodations for those individuals who suffer from a disability but who could otherwise be gainfully employed. I don't really want to say much more because I am not a lawyer and I certainly don't want to say anything that might be considered misleading or ignorant as to how ADA is complied with. And in fact, I don't dare to and I don't care to dare to :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 20:58
@VietnhiPhuvan quite you have to be able to justify the discrimination eg a delivery driver has to be able to drive but an office worker normally doesn't
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 21:02
@VietnhiPhuvan quite you have to be able to justify the discrimination eg a delivery driver has to be able to drive but an office worker normally doesn't
– Pepone
May 9 '14 at 21:02
@Pepone In NYC, not too many people need to drive, so the public transport system is a fantastic accommodation :) The same can't be said if both the handicapped individual and the employer are situated in the boondocks of GA, and the employer has a limited budget for making any kind of accommodations to anyone. Again, I am not a lawyer and I am totally unqualified to give more than super general responses :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 21:08
@Pepone In NYC, not too many people need to drive, so the public transport system is a fantastic accommodation :) The same can't be said if both the handicapped individual and the employer are situated in the boondocks of GA, and the employer has a limited budget for making any kind of accommodations to anyone. Again, I am not a lawyer and I am totally unqualified to give more than super general responses :)
– Vietnhi Phuvan
May 9 '14 at 21:08
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23864%2fis-it-okay-to-filter-out-applications-based-on-certain-criteria%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Does your application ask these questions? (I can't remember the last time an application asked for my high school, and I've never been asked about my driver's license. But I'm not applying for positions as a driver...)
– Monica Cellio♦
May 9 '14 at 22:07
@MonicaCellio It's a position for a gas station cashier, so..yeah...haha
– Moses
May 10 '14 at 1:31
1
I'd suggest that it's at least somewhat unethical to lump the people who have a GED in the same boat as the people who did not graduate high school and do not have a GED. The whole point of getting a GED is to show that you have the same sort of knowledge and skills that are required for graduating from high school.
– aroth
May 10 '14 at 3:40
2
Did you mean "did not graduate high school or has a GED" or "did not graduate high school or have a GED" as they are very different in meaning.
– HorusKol
May 12 '14 at 2:22
@HorusKol if the applicant didn't complete high school in the typical fashion (either they didn't graduate at all, or they got a GED instead of a diploma), my boss is not interested in hiring them.
– Moses
May 12 '14 at 2:38