Qualifications? Do we need them?
 

When you apply for a job, don't you have to meet or exceed the company qualifications? And doesn't the company usually hire the most qualified? Apparently not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/...73&PID=3497329

It's a bit more complicated than that. It hinges upon a legal principle called disparate impact . The court agreed to allow the lawsuits to be filed in the lower courts in Chicago. We'll see what the merits are as these lawsuits go forward.

This forum's resident counsel, d-ray657, will ultimately chime in and straighten us out on this.

Outside of the story link you posted and your point, the answer is no. In fact, at least here in colorado, it seems more like who you know than what you know gets you the job.

Edit, upon further thought, I wonder where the department decided on those only in the top 11%? How did they decide on that number? IS that number good enough? Why wouldn't those in the top 20% be good enough. Just thinking.

Disparate impact is a somewhat complicated enforcement mechanism. It involves significant use of statistics. It's primary point is that any selection process that disproportionately limits opportunities according to race or gender must be necessary to measure actual qualifications for a job. For example, in the Supreme Court case the established disparate impact as a theory of recovery, the court determined that a high school diploma did not accurately measure the ability of a person to shovel coal. Accordingly, it threw out the requirement of a high school diploma for that position. The theory is intended to eliminate artificial barriers to employment. I cold go into much more detail, but I don't know how relevant it would be, and I am tired.

Regards,

D-Ray

One would think so. But, I've seen people get hired/promoted into jobs they can't do plenty of times. The bosses fishing buddie, son-in-law, mistress..........etc.,etc.

Race can be a tricky subject. The black firemen in New Haven could not prove they were discriminated against solely because of their race, (Ultimately). If these guys can prove that they were indeed discriminated against, well there you have it.
Like say if the cutoff was set at 11% because 12% would have meant hiring "one of them", perhaps?

Dave

The biggest impediment to hiring the right people is the HR department. The manager who actually has the position to fill only gets to interview the ones HR sends. HR in the meantime is always in full CYA mode and so is only interested in over qualified people.

I recall an interview that I went through, sitting in front of five people not one of whom I would be working for. One engineer asked "You say you are a member of the IEEE yet you don't have a degree, how is that?" My answer was that the admissions board had noted something about my contributions to the discipline and went on to invite me to apply for senior member status. Needless to say I was not invited back, guess he did not want that kind of competition.:rolleyes:

So D-Ray,
If I understand this, if a pool of 20 qualified candidates only includes 2 women (who tested at the 55%), if they are not hired then they may be able to sue for Disparate Impact. I know that this statement leaves alot of open ended statements. I just hate that our society wants to get rich by suing for everything.

No, that's not right. With that applicant pool, the odds are pretty good that two men would be hired. Disparate impact comes in when a hiring standard, that appears neutral on its face, disproportionately disqualifies a race or gender.

Consider the high school diploma case. To use these numbers just as an example; 80% of Caucasians had a high school diploma while only 65% of African Americans did. A statistical expert would determine whether that disparity created a statistically significant disadvantage. Generally if there is a statistical disadvantage of greater than two standard deviations, the standard would have a disparate impact within the meaning of the law. Even with a disparate impact, however, the employer may avoid liability by showing that the standard was a business necessity - there was no other reasonable way to discern the qualifications of applicants. That is unlikely with a high school diploma, because of the multiple factors that go into getting the diploma, one can't be sure that the diploma accurately measures the qualifications for the job, particularly, when the job was shoveling coal. If there had been a physical fitness test that specifically measured the ability to manipulate a shovel full of coal at a particular pace, that test would be tailored to the job requirements and would justified as a business necessity.

For the same reason, we advise apprentice programs to not require a high school diploma. Instead, a local community college administers a standardized tests that measures only those mental tools necessary to learn a particular trade.

Other standards, like height and weight requirements can only be justified if it shows that anyone above or below a particular height or weight would not be able to fulfill the job requirements. One standard that has been upheld is a maximum height for serving on a submarine. Because space is at a premium on such vessels, and because the crew must pass through small portals, significantly tall or rotund people would have difficulty performing the jobs.

The reason your example does not accurately describe disparate impact is that you said a pool of qualified applicants. Disparate impact only comes into play if a class of applicants are deemed unqualified under a standard that does not accurately measure the qualifications for the job, and which standard disproportionately excludes applicants on the basis of race or gender.

I hope this clarifies it at least in part. I have dealt with supposedly qualified attorneys who weren't able or willing to grasp the limited reach of disparate impact theory.

Regards,

D-Ray

You forgot the Governor's nephew.

Chas

I have not clicked your link yet but can answer your two questions from life experience, no to both.lthough this is taken into consideration for middle and low level jobs when it comes to hiring people that you can actually feed a family on it comes down to who you know.
This is why the biggest determiner of future success at birth is your parents socioeconomic standing.