101–110 of 219 posts
So the real question is do you want to go out into the world again and look for a job, or not? Because if this is true, you have absolute evidence of racism in hiring which is very, very, very illegal.
Legality aside, this is a terrible and naive way to think of DEI. Candidates recruited this way will have a stigma attached to them (“they were recruited because they were X”). A better way is to enforce DSA - Diverse Slate Approach - which ensure that you don’t recruit anybody without having considered multiple genders and/or ethnicity before making the offer. The goal of DSA is to recruit the best candidate for the…
Legality aside, this is a terrible and naive way to think of DEI. Candidates recruited this way will have a stigma attached to them (“they were recruited because they were X”). A better way is to enforce DSA - Diverse Slate Approach - which ensure that you don’t recruit anybody without having considered multiple genders and/or ethnicity before making the offer. The goal of DSA is to recruit the best candidate for the…
> this is a terrible and naive way to think of DEI No, it isn’t. OP is describing the intended use of DEI. A proper merit based approach would have 0 knowledge of race, gender, etc. DSA as well requires prior knowledge of irrelevant attributes of a candidate because its goal is to increase the representation of people with those attributes, not hire the best candidates. Any process trying to select for the best devel…
1. Do not delete or destroy any files. Doing the work your directed to do won’t put you in any personal danger (your company can be sued, you can’t). Destroying evidence could make you liable personally.
2. Let your VP know again that you think this violates US non-discrimination law. Let them know in an email and copy your personal account so you always have a record. Also copy your company’s legal or ethics department if possible. I would write something like “Hi [VP]. I was asked to create a list of job requirements which were based on gender and race. I support increasing diversity in our company but doing this would violate US equal opportunity employment law and would put the company in legal jeopardy. I will not perform this action because it would result in discrimination. I will gladly perform other actions to support our DEI initiatives.” That way, it’s clear you protested. If anyone tries to say it was your fault, you’ll have evidence showing that you protested.
3. If you wish, you could advise your boss on other DEI initiatives that would not be discriminatory, such as recruiting at women in STEM events or offering a leadership training course for underrepresented groups.
4. Refuse to perform tasks that would result in discrimination. Know that US EEO law also protects you against retaliation for refusing to discriminate. According to EEOC.gov, “It is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for… refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination.” Having an email record that you refused to perform the discriminatory action (see point #2) will help you win a lawsuit or settlement if you are fired or turned down for a promotion due to this.
At the end of the day, you are doing your company a favor by not taking this action. If the line “Senior Software Engineer (must be female)” ever showed up in an employment discrimination case your company would lose the trial pretty much instantly.
Legality aside, this is a terrible and naive way to think of DEI. Candidates recruited this way will have a stigma attached to them (“they were recruited because they were X”). A better way is to enforce DSA - Diverse Slate Approach - which ensure that you don’t recruit anybody without having considered multiple genders and/or ethnicity before making the offer. The goal of DSA is to recruit the best candidate for the…
The E in DEI is for Equity, not Equality. It is outcome focused, and not about equal opportunity. DSA would technically be insufficient if you were maximizing DEI.
OP should share the name of his employer. It’s win-win. People his leadership considers undesirable will know not to apply. Big time saver all around.
Legality aside, this is a terrible and naive way to think of DEI. Candidates recruited this way will have a stigma attached to them (“they were recruited because they were X”). A better way is to enforce DSA - Diverse Slate Approach - which ensure that you don’t recruit anybody without having considered multiple genders and/or ethnicity before making the offer. The goal of DSA is to recruit the best candidate for the…
If you're hiring for a particular position and you only get qualified white and Asian male applicants, for example, your three options are to either nuke the position, recruit somewhere that specifically selects against white and Asian men, or lower your qualification standards. Either way, the net result is that A) you don't fill the job and discriminate against all the applicants you got B) you spend more money on recruiting and outsource discrimination against the current applicant pool (e.g. to a women's college) C) you hire a worse employee and discriminate against the applicants who are a better fit for the job. This is not a "win win".
It’s shocking to me how much the courts and executive branch have hollowed out the Civil Rights Act. > It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or natio…
The courts have been clear that this kind of discrimination is illegal. “Our next engineer must be female” isn’t legal, unless there’s something bizarrely gender specific about this task.
If the Company is a federal contractor, this could be nuclear. Talk to a lawyer, not HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HR only exists to protect the company from liability and lawsuits. Talk to them first at your own risk, and realize that almost no good can come from doing so. At best they will now see you as a 'problem' employee that is asking too many questions, and at worst it could start a chain of actions that lead to your termination or leaving the company (for completely unrelated reasons of course).
> HR only exists to protect the company from liability and lawsuits. Exactly. This is exactly why HR will want to know this is happening. So they can shut it down. A half decent HR department will recognize that this carries major risk of lawsuits, and want it killed. You bringing information to about another part of the company trying to do something illegal doesn't make you a "problem" employee. There are a lot of…
Sometimes. Some HR departments in Silicon Valley have taken DEI to heart to the point where they’d be champions of this hiring behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HR only exists to protect the company from liability and lawsuits. Talk to them first at your own risk, and realize that almost no good can come from doing so. At best they will now see you as a 'problem' employee that is asking too many questions, and at worst it could start a chain of actions that lead to your termination or leaving the company (for completely unrelated reasons of course).
While talking to a lawyer is the best option, wouldn't this be one of the few cases where HR is relevant? You're specifically bringing to attention a potential liability/lawsuit from external sources.
Not unless the author reveal the name of the company, which they didn't (as far as I can see at the time of writing).
What's your motive here? Are you planning to leave the company if this escalates? I'm asking because if you want to "take them down" you totally can. Capture evidence and involve an employment lawyer. But what is in it for you? The lawyer will get paid handsomely. What about you? I don't think you're particularly damaged by this to ask for damages.
I get the feeling OP doesn't want to end up in court if he follows the instruction in the spreadsheet.