Proposed New Jersey Law Would Penalize Employers For Discriminating Against Unemployed

A new, unprecedented statute proposed in the New Jersey State Legislature would impose fines up to $10,000 per violation for employers who post job ads that attempt to explicitly exclude unemployed applicants.

Assemblyman Peter Barnes (D-Middlesex), a primary sponsor of the bill, said the discriminatory ads are a "double-whammy" for the population of New Jersey, whose unemployment rate currently hovers at 9.5 percent.

"The massive unemployment we've seen in New Jersey since September 2008 really has not leveled off," Barnes told HuffPost. "It certainly is as low as other parts of the country, like Michigan, with high levels of people who are very well educated and have a lot of skills and experience. It hurts the people looking for job, and it hurts employers too, because the employer takes a whole pool of people out of consideration who would probably fit the bill. It's kind of a double-whammy."

Barnes said he originally imagined a statute that would consider the unemployed a protected group under state civil rights laws along with women, minorities, and the handicapped, but some of his colleagues felt the bill would be "too broad."

"A lot of people felt like we don't really need that kind of protection for all unemployed people under the Civil Rights Act, so this is another bill that sort of grew from that one," Barnes said.

The employment discrimination statute, which will be voted on tomorrow by the New Jersey Labor Committee, states that no employer or employer's agent can legally publish "in print or on the internet" an ad for a job vacancy that suggests they will only review applications from currently employed candidates. The civil penalty for an illegal job ad reported by a citizen would be $5,000 for the first offense and $10,000 for every subsequent offense.

Barnes said he hopes the new law will at least ameliorate some of the frustration unemployed people are already experiencing by not having jobs.

"There's a certain emotional cost there, if you're out looking for a job and you read an ad that says if you don't have a job you need not apply," Barnes said. "It's a very destructive message, and I think it's one we really don't need to send in New Jersey."

Comments

[Paul Ackerman]

04:12 PM on 11/09/2010

The fines should double for each offense after the first and the companies CEO / CFO publically called out.

[KWiedemer]

01:45 PM on 11/09/2010

This is a great start. This type of discrimination occurs much more frequently than most people know about. It occurs much more frequently in much more subtle ways - during interviews, screening processes, etc - something whihc is, of course, very difficult to prove. Also something the NJ bill doesn't address.

I have heard stories from many readers and friends on FB about this type of discrimination - and talked about my own experience in my aritcle, "Reality TV: "The Nightmare Continues for Millions of Unemployed 99ers." This is a problem that will continue to exist - and will require legislation that forces companies to turn to the domestic labor pool - rather than to the overseas labor pools. And we all know that Congress - especially the Republicans - are not interested in changing the way Corporate America operates in order to reap record-setting profits for their companies and their executives - proifits used to lobby Congressional pocketbooks. It's a circle that must be broken.
Denver Unemployment Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/unemployment-in-denver/reality-tv-the-nightmare-continues-for-the-millions-of-unemployed-99ers

[PJ M]

11:26 AM on 10/23/2010

Something that bears consideration is the evolution of HR.

Until the late 80's, most HR departments were benefits administration with the actual hiring being done by managers.

The decision was made by managers who understood the requirements of the position, not by HR.

The end result of HR's involvement has been the people most qualified for the position are usually not the person hired and the company suffers.

I have the same opinion about an MBA as an HR Specialist, I wouldn't trust one to follow my dog with a pooper scooper.

[njgal4obama]

09:00 AM on 10/16/2010

Time for New Jerseyans to get creative.

Know someone who has a small business? Have lunch with them once a week and offer them feedback on how they could increase their profitability. Boom. You're a consultant.

Can anyone say "Van De Lay Industries"?

[totalliberal]

03:50 AM on 10/16/2010

Why would any company prefer to employ a person who has proved their disloyalty by jumping ship to your company. I guess rat-like behavior is admired nowadays by the HR shmoos

[njgal4obama]

08:50 AM on 10/16/2010

Loyalty doesn't factor into the equation. Just ask any "loyal" employee who got a pink slip through no fault of their own.

It's all about money, money, money.

In fact, in this day and age, I suspect loyalty is more of a liability than an asset. And it works that way in both directions.

[ZeraLee]

02:41 PM on 10/15/2010

This law is too broad in that it makes no exception for internal transfer opportunities. As written, it could be interpreted to prohibit efforts to retain existing workers through internal placement.

This law could also be leveraged to downsize higher-paid employees and then hire lower-paid replacements.

I like the basic idea, but when I look at a law, I look for how it could be misunderstood or abused. Ambiguities and generalities are generally bad.

[Walkwithme1966]

02:40 AM on 10/15/2010

This should be past in all states - with the unemployment rate at 9.6%, this is a really arsine position for any employer to take. I have been unemployed for 6 months and am 62 so I am getting screwed two way. But I do have some suggestions for those who are unemployed - have something that shows on your resume that you have been doing something - freelancing, charity work, taking classes to update your skills. I go down to the Humane Society and pet the kittens just to show some volunteer work. http://wp.me/pYLB7-eD

[SpeakSense]

02:11 PM on 10/14/2010

How do they plan to enforce this law? What proof will they use to substantiate the claims? If a company hires 1 unemployed person out of 100 open positions does that count?

[njgal4obama]

08:55 AM on 10/16/2010

If the company places an ad that states unemployed people will not be considered, the proof is right there in the ad.

[SilverFox55]

08:49 AM on 10/14/2010

Not hiring unemployed people is just another bigoted corporate assumption that says, ' if you don't have a job now you must not be worth hiring '. This despite the fact that many unemployed people lost their jobs through corporate outsourcing, downsizing, etc. In other words, no fault of their own. The real tragedy is that people over 50 in this country are screwed to the wall. It's just stunning that conservatives destroyed the economy with their vodoo economics then punish the working class for their incompentence. And, our Government is about ready to "buy" more toxic assets from the banks to put more money into the economy. This BS never ends.

[Howard Scott Pearlman]

08:38 AM on 10/14/2010

Help The Republican Party Save Those Poor Billionaires

Yes, Billionaires are Suffering Today -

Their poor kids can't afford that 5th Lambergini,

They can't buy their eleventh Vacation Home,

Or that 40th $10,000 suit

and the 30th $50,000 gown is now much too expensive.

Please Help a starving Billionaire Today by voting Republican

Remember Caviar ain't cheap.

* * Please send this message all over the internet !

Howard Scott Pearlman

[drbslurp]

10:10 AM on 10/14/2010

and yet it was a Dem Congress that voted for TARP

[2garen]

10:22 AM on 10/14/2010

The original Tarp was under the Bush administration with Paulson in charge..

[senseandnonsense]

08:25 AM on 10/15/2010

Bush proposed TARP as the economy crashed around him.

[dsirr318]

08:00 AM on 10/14/2010

What a sad testament to the hiring practices. I truly hope that the People who have jobs that control who gets hired truly are not that malicious. Maybe 20 years ago if there were major gaps in a persons resume, that would lead a company to believe that there may be a problem, but in today's environment..you have many good people that lost their jobs thanks to the way this Government ran our economy to the ground and I also blame companies, because of the "ME" mentality. There is absolutely no loyalty to employees like their used to be. Employers cannot have their cake and eat it too. No matter what laws are proposed, the entire culture and mentality of taking care of each other needs to improve.

[Nick Anthony]

07:37 AM on 10/14/2010

The fact that this has to be enforced by law shows just how low we as a nation have allowed ourselves to go. It's pathetic and sad. When corporations...errr....excuse me..people (corporations) go broke and are the equivalent unemployed due to lack of funds the government swoops in rescues them. When real people are unemployed they are shamed and ridiculed.

[drbslurp]

06:52 AM on 10/14/2010

Yet another nonsensical attempt at a law to cater to the entitlement class lefties. Especially crazy in NJ. When you try to regulate a business to death like this - no wonder they won't hire people.

And by the way - the law does not regulate hiring practices -only what goes in the advertisement. Meaning it does nothing - the employer can still throw out any resume they want.

[SuePh]

08:14 AM on 10/14/2010

Read the article, drb. And enough with the nonsense of entitlement class lefties when it's the people on Medicaid, welfare, social security and disability who are driving the "get gummint out of our bizness!" narrative (a brilliant psychiatrist identified this as the rage and fear of dependent people who must are bitter and ashamed because they are not self-reliant).

[drbslurp]

10:14 AM on 10/14/2010

I did - says nothing about actual selection - only about wording - you should read the propsed law.

Medicaid, section 8, food stamps, - all entitlement class - love to vote Dems so they can get their 'free sh*t' paid for by others.

The rest is your opinion, no source, and just nonsense :)

[Hnorc]

09:01 AM on 10/14/2010

The only response you are entitle to is; I hope you lose your job.

[drbslurp]

10:12 AM on 10/14/2010

Not only is my job secure, I started my own LLC to handle my sideline consulting business :) I make sure my value to my company is extremely high, and even higher to their competitors.

[Shaun Hensley]

11:34 AM on 10/14/2010

Or his clients.

[goldheart]

06:33 AM on 10/14/2010

This is a great law..and certainly a start to stop a practice that the unemployed do not need to contend with while going through a very stressful situation! I commend New Jersy for taking steps to stop this unconstitutional act....after all, ALL people are entitle to "pursue happiness"...and it is a statue protected by our Constitution!

[OldTulsan]

10:48 AM on 10/14/2010

No, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, which has never been used as the basis for lawsuits.

The Constitution doe NOT contain many legal concepts that were granted by the judiciary ; e.g. natural personhood for corporations

[1differentdrummer]

06:25 AM on 10/14/2010

If businesses and industry wants to move toward full employment (I know that's a big if) wouldn't they give the unemployed priority instead of penalizing them? Employers' actions toward the unemployed make them part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[skylark]

07:35 AM on 10/14/2010

I think the law is a good idea, even though, as others have suggested it only regulates the ad, not the employers' actions. (It would be nice, also, if employers were prohibited from using words and phrases like "energetic", and "recent college grad" could be prohibited from ads as well.) But what would work best of all would be large federal jobs program so that the unemployed (and the unemployed over 50) could actually get back to work and use their skills again. Clearly, the private sector has no intention at all in aiding that efford.

[outtawork45]

12:36 AM on 10/17/2010

This would make sense to give the unemployed priority. The government incentives to potential employers doesn't do anything either. I am a certified assistant for oral surgery. I was given a form to take to interviews this is supposed to give the employer a big $2,400.00 tax break if they hire someone who is on unemployment. Now 2,400 may be alot to some people, but not to doctors. This is no way a big enough incentive. I have been unemployed for over three years. I have gone to interviews and have been told I was lucky that I even got that far because of the high influx of applicants. This sounds just wonderful when you are already nervous about the outcome. Needless to say, still unemployed! I honestly don't know what the heck employers are looking for in hiring. I think they are just going for the cheapest applicant they can find. As some have stated they have soooo many applicants. Experience apparently doesn't count for anything either. It used too! The other factor is I'm 25 years older than when I started. Who is really going to hire someone that is older as an assistant when they have so many younger choices. The only good thing out of this mess is I am able to get pell grants and have started college courses in healthcare admininstration. It is helping to keep my sanity and it's nice to see positive reinforcement with my grades etc.