iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

New Bill Would Ban Discrimination Against The Jobless

Unemployed

First Posted: 03/16/11 06:50 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:40 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers cannot discriminate against applicants based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) introduced legislation on Wednesday that would add unemployed people to that list of protected groups.

The Fair Employment Act of 2011 (H.R. 1113), drafted by Johnson and co-sponsored by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.), would amend the Civil Rights Act to make it illegal for employers to refuse to hire or to lower compensation for a person because of employment status. Johnson said he wrote the legislation because he was troubled by the ongoing phenomenon of job ads specifying that a candidate "must be currently employed."

"I just thought about how unfair that was, to discriminate against people who had lost their jobs due to no fault of their own, who were just victims of corporate downsizing during a tough economy," he told HuffPost. "And then to be penalized for having that status is very unfair. It reminded me of the days when blacks were told to not apply for jobs, when job ads said 'No women allowed.' This really affected me, and I decided that there was something that we could do."

Johnson said if the bill passes, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff to show that he or she was discriminated against based on employment status. While this kind of discrimination may be difficult to prove, Johnson said, he thinks the legislation will stop employers from using discriminatory language in their job ads and refusing to look at resumés from jobless applicants.

"The state of the law is pretty tough on claimants in Title VII cases to prevail, but nevertheless, we do have successful claimants, and this legislation will simply put employers on notice that it's not in their best interest to run ads saying 'no unemployed people need apply,' or other things such as that that would show that they are prejudiced against the unemployed," he said.

While employers and staffing firms are often quick to deny that they discriminate based on employment status, job ads can be found all over the internet openly requiring that candidates already have a job. A law firm in New York City, for example, has a live ad on its website for a legal secretary who "must be currently employed," and the staffing firm Grobard and Associates posted an ad for a "currently employed" medical salesperson on Monster.com.

Eileen Grobard, the president of Grobard and Associates, emphatically denies discriminating against the jobless despite the job ads she posts containing explicitly discriminatory language.

"We do not discriminate against unemployed people," she told HuffPost. "Ninety percent of the people we place are unemployed. This one client that we have requires very, very current technical experience, so that is the only reason candidates have to be currently employed for that one."

Johnson said he expects his bill to receive bipartisan support because unemployment is still soaring at 9.5 percent, and every lawmaker's constituents could use the protection.

"We've got people from all demographics who are afflicted with the scourge of unemployment," he said. "We've got fourteen million Americans unemployed right now, and this legislation helps to protect their right to work."

Correction: Rep. Jesse Jackson is not a co-sponsor at this time.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers cannot discriminate against applicants based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) introduced le...
WASHINGTON -- Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers cannot discriminate against applicants based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) introduced le...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 540
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (14 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mbo2
02:43 PM on 03/21/2011
more federal over-reach and garbage

more reasons for foreign firms to run their businesses elsewhere
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:08 AM on 03/21/2011
Exactly correct - It should be a crime to hire anyone who currently is employed untill everyone gets a chance to have a job. People with jobs ought to be grateful that they are employed and should not take a better job just because it pays more. We need to sacrifice during these times to make sure everyone who needs a job gets one first before people are allowed to become greedy again.
photo
Simple Living
Stand for something
05:33 PM on 03/21/2011
Wow, what a great idea ! I would sacrifice for this cause.
02:02 PM on 03/18/2011
I'm thrilled that this bill is being considered, even though I agree it will be hard to enforce.
But maybe it will begin to change attitudes about this kind of bias.

The fact is, employers can do whatever they want and of course they will continue to
discriminate for all kinds of reasons - some legitimate, some not. But to openly state that you won't hire someone because he or she is currently unemployed is not only counter-productive, it's absolutely shameful.

We rant and rave about jobs being off-shored. Well, this type of blatant discrimination is just as bad, if not worse. And now – when restoring JOBS is supposedly everyone's number one mission – how could this policy possibly be acceptable? I would go so far as to call it UNPATRIOTIC. These companies should be outed. I am curious where the Republicans stand on this...doesn't an "Unemployed Need Not Apply" policy fly in the face of putting Americans back to work?

I am also shocked at some of the vitriolic, unsympathetic comments on this post. There are millions of incredibly skilled/talented workers out there now who are seeking jobs. You may be doing the hiring today. But tomorrow, you may be amongst the ranks of the Unemployed.
Would you suddenly consider yourself unqualified to get hired at a new job? Of course not!
But watch out – that's exactly what could happen. It happens every single day.
What goes around...
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
Simple Living
Stand for something
05:34 PM on 03/21/2011
Well said. Very well said. F & F !
01:47 PM on 03/18/2011
Well this is absurd.
photo
irochfpst
no right turn
01:22 PM on 03/18/2011
meaningless legislation. it is unlikely that discrimination can be proven unless the actions of the employer are overt. employers generally have an unfavorable view of the unemployed even during downturns in the economy. many worker who lost their jobs are older workers and the bottom line for them is cost. why hire someone with a good ethic and work experience when you can hire someone younger for half the cost? and why hire anyone when you can force your current employees to work twice as hard?
photo
Ed Baker
All Hail Big Mother
04:26 PM on 03/18/2011
Better yet - why hire someone who has been out of the business when I can hire someone who is currently working in the field and is up to speed with all the changes?

Someone who is currently working for my competition is simply more qualified.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:28 AM on 03/19/2011
You said that already.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
angrymanspokane
Just a regular guy
10:29 AM on 03/18/2011
A completely unenforceable waste of time. You cannot possibly prove discrimination in a case like this. I own a business, and I hire people. Why I hire some and not others is not quantifiable. Skills, personality, rapport, there are many dimensions in the decision making process.

Yes, If I talk to someone who has not worked in two years, I'm real cautious. That kind of idle time would make any potential employer hesitate (and question ambition, motivation and overall employability).

No matter how hard they try, you can't legislate fairness.
photo
Ed Baker
All Hail Big Mother
04:27 PM on 03/18/2011
I don't know what kind of business you are in, but ours has gone through massive changes in the last 24 months. I can't hire someone who has been out of the loop. Why should I? I can hire someone from my competition who is up to speed.
photo
Simple Living
Stand for something
05:39 PM on 03/21/2011
Ed Baker, are you on company time blogging? That is a firable offense.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:11 AM on 03/21/2011
Even though the law may be unenforcable it gives the people the preception that government cares about their plight and that the politicians are there for them. People who are unemployed need to know that there is someone who is thinking about them or they will have nothing except the sinking feeling that they are one of the few that are "Life's Loosers".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:35 PM on 03/17/2011
look i can 't be sexist or racist any more now all I have to be mean to are smokers and that is slipping.
photo
Mister Grumpy
An Angry American
05:27 PM on 03/17/2011
Saying you were discriminated against....... and proving it is two different things.............

This leglislation is just another one on the books that can't / won't be enforced............
photo
mariusvinchi
Saint Lucia is looking better and better every day
09:27 AM on 03/18/2011
Agreed!
Hiring laws are practically impossible to enforce. Human Resource seminars actually teach hiring managers what to say and what not to say in interviews. Code words to use when giving a "reference" to a former employee or when doing a background on a potential hire. How to notate a resume or application of an "undesirable" in such a way as to be seemingly innocuous.
For every law, a group of consultants will get together and design a system to get around it without getting caught, and surprisingly, this is legal!!!
04:46 PM on 03/17/2011
I've been fighting job discrimination all my life. I spent 17 years as a plaintiff in two federal lawsuits on job discrimination and retaliation. Initially, I thought employment status (unemployed) didn't really fit in the Title VII definition of protected class. However, it does meet the criteria of treating a whole group differently - and really because of a group characteristic (like race, gender, age, disability) that members cannot help. Furthermore, it discriminates based on a fact that has absolutely nothing to do with competence. I blog on www.plaintiffblues.com about these and other such issues.
photo
Ed Baker
All Hail Big Mother
11:15 AM on 03/18/2011
OK - under your definition, we'd be able to ban hiring discrimination based on educational attainment and work experience.

This is a horrible idea. Things change rapidly in our business. If I have the choice to employ someone who is now working in the industry, vs someone who has been unemployed for two years, hands down, the former candidate wins.
12:27 AM on 03/19/2011
Just because someone doesn't have a full-time job doesn't mean they are out of the loop in terms to technology or trends. There are those that work on a contract or freelance basis, and most professions have trade magazines that will also keep them informed on changes or progress in their field. And if your industry is anything like mine, there are tons, tons of blogs that are even quicker to inform their readers of changes in their industry.

I think it's offensive of you to make the assumption that an applicant is out of touch with trends in their field because they don't have permanent employment. You're just too lazy or cheap to take a half hour to chat to your applicants applicants to see if they are truly qualified.
photo
Simple Living
Stand for something
05:40 PM on 03/21/2011
Ed, just go away already.
04:22 PM on 03/17/2011
What a silly waste of time.
photo
Simple Living
Stand for something
05:41 PM on 03/21/2011
Says you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
03:06 PM on 03/17/2011
This is pointless. The problem is there aren't enough jobs. If there were enough jobs, employers couldn't be so picky. So legislators should be working on creating jobs, not rearranging chairs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RichInSeattle
03:44 PM on 03/17/2011
You are missing the point. Employers are saying that if someone got laid off then they must not of been very good. OR, if they can't find a job, there must be a reason for it. Not the case at all. There are really good people out there looking for a job. It's hard enough to find a job when you are unemployed, to have people discriminate against you for it adds insult to injury. Any company that has that policy has no soul.
photo
Ed Baker
All Hail Big Mother
11:16 AM on 03/18/2011
Or - if you're currently working in the field, instead of being unemployed, you're a better candidate, and they have plenty of such qualified people to chose from.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
demilieu
Texas liberal...with reservations
02:40 PM on 03/17/2011
It's not going to fly because then you need to examine the reason an unemployed person is unemployed. I can't see HR getting to the point where a person's employment history becomes off limits in the hiring decision. Just work on bills to create more jobs, stop sending jobs to developing countries, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce our use of fossle fuels and...well, that's enough already!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WilliamTheV
I drank what? -Socrates
02:35 AM on 03/18/2011
the employment history isn't the deciding factor here. It's the fact that employers are saying that one must currently be employed in order to even apply.

We can't exactly lower the unemployment rate if we don't hire those who currently lack jobs.
photo
Ed Baker
All Hail Big Mother
11:18 AM on 03/18/2011
Current employment in our industry, that has changed every 15 minutes for the last two years - is quite important. We currently have more than enough applicants who are currently employed because we pay more than our competition. I'm simply not interested in candidates who are not currently employed in the field - the learning curve would be too steep for them and I'm not interested in spending the money on them when I have more than enough applications from better candidates.
02:37 PM on 03/17/2011
Unfortunately, as soon as the new gop members of the tparty led house of representatives see the words "ban discrimination" in the bill summary, they will probably bury this in committee. I'm quite certain that any legislation seeking to extend or enforce any sort of anti-discrimination law will never see the light of day, considering the makeup of the current house of reps.
photo
Ed Baker
All Hail Big Mother
11:19 AM on 03/18/2011
Employment history is relevant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cosmiCataclysm
02:24 PM on 03/17/2011
Good idea, but almost impossible to enforce.
photo
Ed Baker
All Hail Big Mother
04:28 PM on 03/18/2011
Bad idea, counter productive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ethiopia1a
The COMMA Sutra,,,,making grammar sexy since 1875
02:20 PM on 03/17/2011
i will sue all lol