New Jersey Bans Job Ads That Discriminate Against Unemployed

In New Jersey, it is no longer legal for employers to specify in their job ads that unemployed persons will not be considered.

Gov. Chris Christie (R) recently signed a bill that bans overt discrimination against the jobless in print or online -- the first legislation of its kind in the United States. Employers would face a penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $5,000 for subsequent offenses.

New Jersey state Rep. Celeste Riley (D-Cumberland), a primary sponsor of the bill, said she became aware of the problem of employers discriminating against the jobless when her colleague showed her an actual online job ad that ruled out unemployed candidates.

“My district has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state, and when jobs are few and far between, I don’t want somebody saying, ‘Just because you're unemployed I’m not gonna hire you,’” she told The Huffington Post. “There's the old theory of ‘you need a job to get a job,’ but that's absolutely unacceptable. You should be employed based on your skills and what you bring to the table.”

HuffPost has been reporting on the discrimination against the unemployed since June 2010, when Sony Ericsson posted a job ad online that specified in bold lettering, "NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL.” It's still easy to find job ads that specify that a candidate must already have a job in order to be considered.

Riley said she’s not sure to what extent the New Jersey law will actually change employers minds about hiring unemployed people, but she hopes it will at least send them a message.

“You can’t control people’s behaviors,” she said, “but as a state, we can say that we find this practice unacceptable -- especially in these hard economic times.”

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) introduced similar legislation on a federal level in March that would amend the Civil Rights Act to include unemployed people as a protected group. The Fair Employment Act of 2011 -- a bill which is still in committee -- would make it illegal for employers to refuse to hire or to lower compensation based on employment status.

“I’m hopeful this can be a bipartisan effort,” he told HuffPost, “because unemployment knows no demographic difference.”

Comments

[regank]

02:32 PM on 05/17/2011

http://staffingtalk.com/unemployed-bother-applying/

[Bruce Bertrand]

02:56 PM on 04/28/2011

What this suggests it that employers prefer job-hoppers! They will only get what they deserve eventually when their best employees suddenly leave for the next best opportunity. Having had the rug pulled out from under me by employers too many times (in the case of large companies as one of many "sacrifices" to artificially boost profits) I am constantly looking for my next job for fear that I will get no responses while I'm unemployed. Then the politicians will call me "lazy" fo collecting unemployment for long stretches.

The law is fine, but it's not going to stop the practice. Employers are good at making up excuses for not hiring qualified candidates based on ignorant prejudices.

[QolourCouture]

08:34 AM on 04/28/2011

Are you serious?If you are unemployed don't waste your time applying because they will not call you back ..This will hurt people more than it will help..Bury this law along with the student loan bankruptcy ..

Key word:Unemployed can apply ...they won't get a call back anyway...

[Keyop]

04:56 PM on 04/27/2011

How bout you cant lay off somebody unless they have another job?

[satanlite]

09:03 PM on 04/26/2011

This is worse. Now they'll go and interview, and their applications will be tossed out the next day or flagged - employers who want to do this will do it regardless.

[Nick9075]

09:50 PM on 04/26/2011

Sure if you actually are dumb enough to show that you are unemployed or have significant gaps (even if it is the truth) then yes your Resume will be deleted. Like I said below, if you have to lie or stretch dates to get a job so be it. Do you honestly believe that everyone who is currently employed told the 100% truth on their application??, & currently has near perfect credit ?? Even temp jobs now require multiple interviews with the client company for a job that may last 3-6 months and comes with no benefits but temp agencies won't even hire long term unemployed people

[Ed Baker]

05:08 PM on 04/27/2011

So you'd misrepresent yourself? We check references, and we don't use the phone numbers you give us.

Even if we hire you on, if we find any deception on your part we fire you.

[Ed Baker]

05:09 PM on 04/27/2011

It is much worse - the unemployed will spend their time, money and effort chasing positions they have no hope of getting.

[satanlite]

05:14 PM on 04/27/2011

You bet. It's a terrible way to reduce a finite amount of gas money chasing an empty possibility. People cheering this decision have no idea what they've done.

[QolourCouture]

08:41 AM on 04/28/2011

I agree ..I told my friend you're wasting time applying for recent grad jobs .You graduated in 2009..lol

It is hard to track down a number for HR. When you hire a company to do a background check ,it finds a 1-800 listed to the location the worked at or the Headquarter number, not a direct number to HR..Most HR departments no longer verify employment anyway.Once they call the random 1-800 number, it takes you to a secretary and she then connects you to HR..I have a friend who's a Corp sectary and been making $1500 a pop lying for people ..Oh, and she said HR mailboxes are full with vm's from people wanting employment verifications and they never call them back ...Have fun playing cat and mouse trying to dig as hard as you can to find someone's true employment dates ..lol

[demilieu]

02:54 PM on 04/26/2011

Laudable, but impossible to enforce...or easy enough to get around.

[Monday Morning]

02:27 PM on 04/26/2011

Deficit Hawk Drums Drown Out Cries Of Jobless!

Unfortunately, Mr. Robinson will most likely continue to be drowned out by the drumbeat of the deficit hawks. Looking through the various news sites today, I found a couple of articles promoting deficit hawkery though in a rather subtle way. First up is this from USA Today:

Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation’s history, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds. The trend shows few signs of easing, even though the economic recovery is nearly 2 years old.

A record 18.3% of the nation’s total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010. Wages accounted for the lowest share of income — 51.0% — since the government began keeping track in 1929.

The income data show how fragile and government-dependent the recovery is after a recession that officially ended in June 2009.

…snip…

Accounting for 80% of safety-net spending in 2010: Social Security, Medicare (health insurance for seniors), Medicaid (health insurance for the poor) and unemployment insurance.

The whole thrust of that article is the “drain on the government resources” theme – as I say, deficit hawkery without being quite as explicit as usual.

http://my.firedoglake.com/dakine01/2011/04/26/deficit-hawk-drums-drown-out-cries-of-jobless/

[Peter007]

02:07 PM on 04/26/2011

A dumb law.

What happens when the applicant is asked to state who their current employer is?.

A company will simple go through the applications and discard any that don't have current employee information.

There will probable be harm done to someone because laws that have good intentions many times cause unintended consequences.

[Ed Baker]

01:02 PM on 04/26/2011

So now the time and effort of the unemployed will be wasted on employers who have no interest in hiring them.

Brilliant.

[beesknees08]

12:56 PM on 04/26/2011

Why discriminate against the jobless? Many people lost their jobs through no fault of their own, so why apply a blanket statement across the board against the unemployed. Sounds like some HR departments are just getting lazy and are not actually reading resumes or bothering to find out why a person had been let go from their previous jobs.

[Ed Baker]

01:04 PM on 04/26/2011

It doesn't matter if it's their fault or not. In our industry things have been changing every 15 minutes for the last 3 years. I can't take a chance on hiring someone who has been out of the loop. I am only interested in hiring people who are currently employed in the business.

I'm glad we don't operate in NJ. We'd be wasting more money processing people we have no interest in hiring. It all costs money - and we'd be able to hire fewer people.

[detalumis]

02:57 PM on 04/26/2011

What do you do if somebody is off on mat leave or had surgery or something, do you also give them the pink slip for missing more than 15 mintues of work. Yikes scarey.

[RPIL]

03:20 PM on 04/26/2011

An industry that changes every 15 minutes...you must not have any education or experience requirements. Can I apply?

[mun15ey23]

12:50 PM on 04/26/2011

HELP WANTED: But you must have a job. Jobless people need not apply! How stupid is that?!?! They want to jobless and struggling people to work at some minimum paying jobs. So companies that use to pay very good $20 an hr. are now offering the same job for minimum wage pay, no benefits, nothing. I use to work at Home Depot and they offered starting $15 an hour. Work overnight and there is a pay differential. That was 8 years ago.Today, your lucky to even get $10 an hour - No pay differential for working overnight. Home Depot is a great place to work, but with so many people desperate for jobs, they know this and offer the lowest possible.

[Ed Baker]

05:11 PM on 04/27/2011

For some jobs it is completely relevant. We don't hire the unemployed and with good reason. We need people who are current in the industry.

[mun15ey23]

05:40 PM on 04/27/2011

"For some jobs it is completely relevant. We don't hire the unemployed and with good reason. We need people who are current in the industry"
WHAT THE F*CK?!?

And what good reason is that? Because he/she has been out of the industry for 6-12 months w/ no job they are not qualified? How would you know if don't even give a person a chance to meet with the company, submit a resume, etc?

"NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL.”

Where above does it say you must be current in the industry? What if for the time being you're working at a fast-food restaraunt? Does that mean you can apply? Does that make the person working for McDonald's or Jack-in-the-Box current in the industry? Your explanation is doesn't make sense.

[Jeanette DeBella Bogue]

11:45 AM on 04/26/2011

In these times, why would I want to hire someone who already has a job? They don't need it as much as someone who has no job, and their unemployment benefits have run out!

[Ed Baker]

01:04 PM on 04/26/2011

Current experience in the field.

[catmagnet]

05:43 PM on 04/26/2011

Exactly. Granted, I've been out of work for a month and a half, but fortunately, in my line of work, I'm able to keep on top of what's going on through the internet. So far, I haven't had a lack of interviews...and only one has been in New Jersey.

[f7681cd]

10:29 PM on 04/26/2011

Ed, you have spent more than 15 minutes posting on this site wasting your company's time and your useless comments is of no value here as well.

Please fire yourself now.

[jasev01]

10:25 AM on 04/26/2011

apply waste your time so your resume can be tossed out.

[Ed Baker]

01:05 PM on 04/26/2011

Exactly - I'm not interested in hiring the unemployed. So I'm glad I don't operate in NJ.

[guest0987]

04:47 PM on 04/26/2011

Tough guy Ed! I bet you have a lot of turn over - who would even want to work for someone like you? I'm employed - and I wouldn't.

[MrJoyboy]

10:18 AM on 04/26/2011

Shows again how stupid corporate management can be. Many unemployed people lost their jobs through no fault of their own and would make terrific employees, and many employed people (such as some corporate managers) are incompetent and should be unemployed.

[Ed Baker]

01:05 PM on 04/26/2011

I don't care why they lost their job - they are not currently working in the field and they are of no use to me.

[MrJoyboy]

03:13 PM on 04/26/2011

If your only criterion for hiring someone is that they are "working in the field" I don't think you're necessarily getting the best employees.

[RPIL]

03:19 PM on 04/26/2011

So you work your current employees hard because you can't find enough people to leave their current jobs...without a significant raise in pay. I might be working for you!

[Rosanneofpgh]

09:34 AM on 04/26/2011

Government can make companies accept applications from the unemployed but how will the law be enforced? They will accept the applications because they have to but they still wont hire any unemployed person. How do you prove discrimination in this case? The intent of the bill is fine but it gives the despairing unemployed false hope that the company will hire them. I would rather know that I dont stand a chance of being hired by a company that discriminates against unemployed people than than wait and hope that they will call me. I wouldnt want to waste paper, ink, postage and emotion on something that will never happen.

[DrMandible]

10:38 AM on 04/26/2011

They will prove it just like any other discrimination is proven. This is no more difficult than proving that an employer discriminated based on race, gender, religion, disability, etc. It's certainly difficult, but that's no reason not to try.

[MrStat1]

01:45 PM on 04/26/2011

All they have to say is someone else was more qualified or someone else was a better fit. You can't prove discrimination.

[Ed Baker]

01:05 PM on 04/26/2011

We don't have to hire them, and we won't. We can't. We need people with current experience.

[Rosanneofpgh]

11:48 AM on 04/27/2011

Au contraire, my friend. You DO have to hire them. The law says so. You arent taking into account how grateful an unemployed person would be. They would go the extra mile for you. What they lack in current experience would be made up for by their willingness to work hard and they could learn what they needed to to become current. You are being very shortsighted, eddie, and you are breaking the law. If that matters to someone like you.