Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

#81

Post by TheCoelacanth »

darkchasma wrote: post #76
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is allowable only in circumstances where it is a "bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise". A gentlemans club can get away with it. Someone who simply wants to change their gender ratio can't. Discriminating against accountants is legal in all circumstances.

I haven't seen the case law which prohibits hiring for diversity. Could you direct me to some which demonstrates your assertion?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminating based on sex except when it is a bona fide occupational qualification. Diversity is certainly not a bona fide occupational qualification, so they can't recruit based on it.

They may be justified in taking diversity into account in the hiring process, but they cannot exclude candidates based solely on sex. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, SCOTUS held that candidates can not be excluded exclusively because of race. In Grutter v. Bollinger, they decided that it was legal to take it into account, but only on an individual basis, not to exclude candidates altogether. These both deal with race, but I see no evidence that sex would be treated differently since the same law applies to both.

Re: Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

#82

Post by zapdrive »

xemoka wrote: post #42
columbo wrote: post #31

Wanting to increase diversity is a good thing, so kudos for that. However you should -never- -ever- -ever- indicate a preference towards a race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. Did I say ever? Ever. Ever. Ever. It's discriminatory, it's demeaning and it's illegal. If you want to increase diversity then, well, don't just say 'I need women!', rather go to where the diversity is. There are a ton of…

But how is that not discrimination masked in sheep's clothing? At least be forward with what your looking for, why should a male apply for a position that he wants, fits PERFECTLY but only get rejected because the company was veiling it's intentions to hire a woman? In my opinion, being female is equivalent to a skill—sure a hard coded skill, but a skill none-the-less. When you need to connect with a particular audie…

Let me get this straight. Do you mean to say that it is OK to discriminate against men, but not women?

Re: Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

#83

Post by dennisgorelik »

moron4hire wrote: post #38

Back when I was dating, I had a really hard time meeting "qualified candidates" (i.e. interesting people not enamored with the TV show "The Jersey Shore"), say nothing about ones who were single and interested in dating me. I signed up on a bunch of dating websites, I filled out all of the profiles with minute detail (thinking it proved I wasn't some shallow person interested in a quick hookup), paid very close atten…

> One got just as good of results from random selection as from HR-based, profile-based, direct-effort candidate searches.

Do you mean that if you search job board for e.g. "java sql" you would get about the same type of candidates that you can get by stopping people on the street?

Re: Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

#84

Post by darkchasma »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #81
darkchasma wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen the case law which prohibits hiring for diversity. Could you direct me to some which demonstrates your assertion?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminating based on sex except when it is a bona fide occupational qualification. Diversity is certainly not a bona fide occupational qualification, so they can't recruit based on it. They may be justified in taking diversity into account in the hiring process, but they cannot exclude candidates based solely on sex. In Regents of the University of California v.…

Civil Rights Act does not ban affirmative action. As long as its aiming to correct a statistical imbalance, which a 10-1 ratio is certainly is. (And a few more points, but nothing to conclude your assertion is certain)

Re: Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

#85

Post by mdszy »

tzs wrote: post #74
columbo wrote: post #31

Wanting to increase diversity is a good thing, so kudos for that. However you should -never- -ever- -ever- indicate a preference towards a race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. Did I say ever? Ever. Ever. Ever. It's discriminatory, it's demeaning and it's illegal. If you want to increase diversity then, well, don't just say 'I need women!', rather go to where the diversity is. There are a ton of…

> However you should -never- -ever- -ever- indicate a preference towards a race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. Did I say ever? Ever. Ever. Ever. It's discriminatory, it's demeaning and it's illegal Discrimination by private employers based on sexual orientation is not illegal in the United States under Federal law, nor under the state law of approximately 60% of the states. There are long stand…

That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Re: Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

#86

Post by TheCoelacanth »

darkchasma wrote: post #84
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminating based on sex except when it is a bona fide occupational qualification. Diversity is certainly not a bona fide occupational qualification, so they can't recruit based on it. They may be justified in taking diversity into account in the hiring process, but they cannot exclude candidates based solely on sex. In Regents of the University of California v.…

Civil Rights Act does not ban affirmative action. As long as its aiming to correct a statistical imbalance, which a 10-1 ratio is certainly is. (And a few more points, but nothing to conclude your assertion is certain)

As the two cases I cited indicate, affirmative action is not illegal, but completely excluding candidates because of their membership in a protected class, or any type of quota for minorities is illegal. Affirmative action can be applied during the hiring process to favor some candidates, but not to completely exclude some class of candidate.

Re: Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

#87

Post by moron4hire »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #83
moron4hire wrote: post #38

Back when I was dating, I had a really hard time meeting "qualified candidates" (i.e. interesting people not enamored with the TV show "The Jersey Shore"), say nothing about ones who were single and interested in dating me. I signed up on a bunch of dating websites, I filled out all of the profiles with minute detail (thinking it proved I wasn't some shallow person interested in a quick hookup), paid very close atten…

> One got just as good of results from random selection as from HR-based, profile-based, direct-effort candidate searches. Do you mean that if you search job board for e.g. "java sql" you would get about the same type of candidates that you can get by stopping people on the street?

Yes, both for being surprised with how much a random person could do, and for how little a so-called "qualified" candidate could.

Re: Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

#88

Post by darkchasma »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #86
darkchasma wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil Rights Act does not ban affirmative action. As long as its aiming to correct a statistical imbalance, which a 10-1 ratio is certainly is. (And a few more points, but nothing to conclude your assertion is certain)

As the two cases I cited indicate, affirmative action is not illegal, but completely excluding candidates because of their membership in a protected class, or any type of quota for minorities is illegal. Affirmative action can be applied during the hiring process to favor some candidates, but not to completely exclude some class of candidate.

Heh, I think we're arguing inches from each other at this point, with nowhere to go until a landmark opinion presents itself. gg

Re: Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

#89

Post by darkchasma »

zapdrive wrote: post #82
xemoka wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how is that not discrimination masked in sheep's clothing? At least be forward with what your looking for, why should a male apply for a position that he wants, fits PERFECTLY but only get rejected because the company was veiling it's intentions to hire a woman? In my opinion, being female is equivalent to a skill—sure a hard coded skill, but a skill none-the-less. When you need to connect with a particular audie…

Let me get this straight. Do you mean to say that it is OK to discriminate against men, but not women?

Absolutely, if it's to set right the ratio that has been skewed due to the history of women's lack of equality. The stats don't lie in this case, women are getting screwed.

Re: Turns out Hiring a Woman is Discriminatory

#90

Post by chrisrhoden »

kefka wrote: post #63
chrisrhoden wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this not why affirmative action was created in the first place? No. Affirmative action was not created to allow for diverse workplaces. It was created to correct for differences in opportunity and implicit associations, etc...

So, if I can show (adverse) differences in opportunity, then affirmative action for women would be accepted? http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/14/high-price-of-being-born-female/ - Covers many topics on lack of women's income. http://www.bls.gov/ore/abstract/ec/ec070130.htm - "White fat women need not apply. Where is the White Fat guy study?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherhood_penalty - Penalty any woman pays…

If you can show it to the legislature, yes. In some of these cases (like the motherhood penalty), AA laws would likely not help but alternative legislation has been considered.

I think we agree that something should be done. I was addressing your specific comment which suggested that the problems faced by poor black americans are the same as the problems faced by upper-middle-class white female americans.

Post reply on HN