iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

California Considers Outlawing Discrimination Against Unemployed

California Considers Outlawing Discrimination Agai

Posted: 01/23/2012 5:02 pm

Lawmakers are trying to make California the second state in the nation to ban hiring discrimination against the unemployed.

A bill introduced Jan. 5 and sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Michael Allen wouldn't allow unemployed job-seekers to sue for discrimination, but companies that violate the law would face investigation and fines of up to $10,000.

"There's been an increasing utilization of using this as a crude screening process to keep applicants from even being interviewed," Allen told The Huffington Post. "It's better to be proactive rather than to let this become a common practice."

Allen, who is also a labor attorney, said discrimination against the unemployed could specifically harm recent military veterans, minority groups with historically high unemployment and women who take maternity leave.

California has an unemployment rate of 11.3 percent, compared to about 8.5 percent nationally.

Discrimination against the unemployed makes it even harder for the laid off to re-enter the workforce, The National Employment Law Project found. In a one-month study last year, the group found more than 125 online job postings that required candidates to be "currently employed," for positions ranging from insurance agent to university research supervisor to sous chef.

Allen said that although the bill is broad, its reach doesn't go too far. "Once the law is implemented, usually it's pretty clear what questions are legitimate," he said. "Obviously, employers want to know about experience, work history, that sort of thing. If they start dwelling on the fact that the applicant is currently unemployed, that's when a red flag would go up."

But some business groups oppose a blanket ban on ruling out the unemployed, saying it's important that employers can look for workers with up-to-date experience and ask about gaps on an applicant's resume without fearing retribution.

One restaurant staffing agency based in Georgia told The Huffington Post that candidates who already have a job are more likely to be applying "for the right reasons."

Last April, New Jersey became the first state to ban overt discrimination against the unemployed. Under the New Jersey law, employers can consider employment status in hiring, but can't specifically bar those without jobs from applying. Employers who violate the ban face a $1,000 fine, and a $5,000 penalty for subsequent offenses. A cleaning equipment manufacturer in Ewing, N.J. was the first to be hit with the fine, seven months after the ban became law.

The California bill would go further by making the unemployed a protected class under anti-discrimination law. Allen said it's too early to tell whether the bill will be controversial, but he expects to have a good idea within the next two or three months.

Democratic members of Congress and President Obama have also targeted discrimination against the unemployed, but measures to ban the practice have never gained traction in Congress. Such initiatives would make it illegal nationwide to refuse to consider a candidate without a current job.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Lawmakers are trying to make California the second state in the nation to ban hiring discrimination against the unemployed. A bill introduced Jan. 5 and sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Michael ...
Lawmakers are trying to make California the second state in the nation to ban hiring discrimination against the unemployed. A bill introduced Jan. 5 and sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Michael ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,091
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
01:52 PM on 03/20/2012
What a disgusting disgrace!! I was LAID OFF because the new CFO in a very small company wanted his pay- thus, cutting staff was it - they hired someone to take my place 4 months later at a much lower rate. I was hired there for my skill to get the job done which made the company money and I did so, but a but munch thought he was more important then the other 6 workers who did their job (production line) Not much of a CFO if you take our 6 out of 10 of your production line that gets the work done to make the money. Why is this taboo to tell the next employer the TRUTH you would think that would be refreshing considering the but kissers that are out there. So, upon the layoff I went back to school into a flurishing field that I had always wanted to be in - Law- Unemployed ya, you treat going back to school like a new job, constantly challenging (more so then my last job- and loved the changes) I was a full+ time student and concentrated on that as I would a job. So sorry for the suckers who think that my previous skills and experience along with my new education isn't good enough, that makes them to me worthless, goats in the cog of corporations! Yep, follow the leader no matter how wrong it is. Goat
09:09 PM on 02/23/2012
Good. Unfortunately we cannot count on people to do the right thing, which is consider everyone for a position. I can't understand why employers would be so hard-hearted, and short-sighted. In a time when so many American jobs were laid to waste as they headed to India and China, so that the CEOs can make $100 million a year in salary, there are so many GOOD workers who are out of work. The job market is improving, slowly, but why discriminate?

I was so bummed to see a guy that was named the Citizen of the Year in San Luis Obispo California in 2010, just post an ad requiring that you had to be "Currently employed." He was honored for being a philanthropist, so it was kind of ironic that he'd post for an assistant job, leaving out many of the people he is lauded for helping.
01:25 AM on 01/25/2012
Great idea, but totally unenforceable. I'd rather see the state legislature make it so my community college can afford to offer summer classes this year, as they were cancelled last summer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cleojones
It is what it is..
04:33 PM on 01/24/2012
I think that this is a good idea.. From what I have heard this is done all the time in this economy.. and it's just not fair!
03:25 PM on 01/24/2012
After 23 years with a 3M plant in Calif., our factory was closed in 2009. It was a great job, and I had NO reason to look elsewhere. I had a nice 401K , a pension to consider......and my co-workers were like Family. After the closure, I remained in Calif. to help care for an elderly parent. I knew I'd eventually move out of the state & chose NOT to run out and take some third world-wage "temp" job. By moving to Nevada, I've managed to stretch my finances further. Jobs are scarce here too, but I'm settled & looking. I exhausted any unemployment & COBRA benefits long ago. At 56, I'm having to begin the periodic dipping into my retirement "savings". I'm NOT real happy about the extra penalties I'll be hit with for taking early withdrawals......but I'm probably fortunate...in that I'm single with no dependents, no debt....and really only myself to worry about. Having said all that.......I'd be pretty ticked off if someone denied me an interview because I am currently unemployed. Knowing that in this economy, I'll probably end up working well beyond traditional "retirement" age, if I want to take a couple of years off to enjoy a little "early retirement", while I still can....then by all means, I will take the time to "recharge" my batteries. Being over 50 & currently "unemployed" doesn't make you automatically "worthless".
12:10 PM on 01/24/2012
Smoke and mirrors to make the unemployed feel that the government is helping them. While discriminating againts the unemployed is morally wrong and a company may miss out on a good worker is would not be that hard to keep doing it. The company just found a better "qualified applicant", since you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise you are still screwed. Just stop putting certain words in advertisements for openings and don't ask stupid questions at the interview. The economy will eventually get better dispite the "best efforts" of Obama and even the long term unemployed will find work, just might be to late to save their houses etc. Good luck to the job seakers and I mean that sincerly.
01:25 AM on 01/25/2012
Agreed, it can't be enforced.
09:11 PM on 02/23/2012
it's not "smoke and mirrors" if it helps bring awareness to this horrible practice. I'm grateful that the Govt cares at all.. Our job market has been slowly improving since 2009, and more so lately, but this practice is clearly wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeff McConnell
ACSM Personal Trainer/ retired LEO
12:06 PM on 01/24/2012
This is ridiculous. The worker is discriminated against, but the State gets the money? Thanks for nothing, California.
09:12 PM on 02/23/2012
No, it helps job seekers in the long run. Sadly, it took the threat of fines to make some companies hire women, and people of color. As well as renting to them... until people stop being jerks, the Govt has to step in.
11:27 AM on 01/24/2012
the only thing i want to hear out of Obamas mouth tonight is he's extending unemployment benefits!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeff McConnell
ACSM Personal Trainer/ retired LEO
12:12 PM on 01/24/2012
I don't know. "I am not running for re-election" would be good,too.
01:26 AM on 01/25/2012
He will extend them, but Boehner won't.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mek0123
Merle from Michigan
11:23 AM on 01/24/2012
This needs to be done on a national level. Too many 50'ers and older, who are being forced to work just to survive are being discriminated against big time. It's sad, but so true and Corporations will do what they can get away with to their own benefit, and it's almost always coordinated.
photo
philliplojek
Irritating liberals one at a time.
10:06 AM on 01/24/2012
A company hires a worker, now the government wants to tell the employer whom to hire?
09:14 PM on 02/23/2012
Oh okay. So we can go back to refusing to hire people based on their gender or color? that's okay too? Or maybe we can go back to hiring 13 year olds to work in sweat shops?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nychaseter
No 1 needs big govt...til they need it
09:35 AM on 01/24/2012
UGH! Voting is like driving. You wanna go forward, you pick "D". You wanna go backward, you pick "R". It's that simple.
photo
philliplojek
Irritating liberals one at a time.
10:05 AM on 01/24/2012
I thought the expression was "D" for disaster and "R" for recovery? Maybe that's only for rational people.
fiona99
Love is the answer...
10:24 AM on 01/24/2012
That's funny! Yes, wouldn't you like to see Romney running the country? With his off-shore bank accounts, etc. He's worth a quarter billion! He pays less taxes than you do. A real "Man of the People", right? Yes, or Newt who thinks poor kids should work! Yep, sounds really "rational" to me.
09:16 PM on 02/23/2012
If you study history at all, the Stock Market thrives under the Democrats, as does the economy, and tanks under the republicans. Look at the month over month job losses and gains in the private sector in particular... it's no comparison, the jobs are being added monthly since early in President Obama (D) term. That's the fact, jack.
01:27 AM on 01/25/2012
The D is for dipsh*t, and the R is for retard. We're screwed no matter who gets elected.
photo
oregonian68
McCarthy was right.
09:34 AM on 01/24/2012
Sounds like a way for California to extort more money from private businesses. This bill won't help unemployed people. Power to the government! Time to move to Oregon, where private business is welcome!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
citizen of the universe
Look! A Shepards Beak Whale
02:18 PM on 01/24/2012
Your name is oregonian68, aren't you already there? If not, have a safe trip.
01:27 AM on 01/25/2012
The bill won't help the state budget either.
photo
drpmindmender
Whoever saves 1 life, saves the world in time
08:53 AM on 01/24/2012
If California is going to fine companies for dicriminating against unemployed job applicants, when is California (or every other state , for that matter) going to impose large fines and/or jail sentences on companies convicted of hiring undocumented workers?
photo
oregonian68
McCarthy was right.
09:36 AM on 01/24/2012
NO, but California WILL impose fines on those who "discriminate" against illegal immigrants who are out of work. I live there part time. I know.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
citizen of the universe
Look! A Shepards Beak Whale
02:19 PM on 01/24/2012
You know nothing.
01:28 AM on 01/25/2012
It's unenforceable, who cares.
ssyankeeclipper
Glen Beck rules
08:06 AM on 01/24/2012
wake up please America!!!! my sister works for a company very well known for its line of athletic clothing, all clothes made in china shipped here and sold for big $$$, they also import workers from other countries to come here and take what few jobs are out there,the company pays the imported workers 0 benifits and no ss, the job program was created by our lovely gov.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
missiontango
I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to too.
07:46 AM on 01/24/2012
There can be no denying that finding a job while you are still actually in a job is easier. The underlying fact is that most prospective employers figure that if you are not currently employed you might have done something to become that way. Let's face it, big business has one objective and that is to maximize profits. If big business feels that excluding people who are not currently employed renders them more suitable candidates, then that's the way things go. It will be impossible to legislate this practice out of existence. Bottom line, if you feel your days are numbered with your current employer, bust a move and get another job if possible.
07:59 AM on 01/24/2012
The only thing i 'might" have done wrong was going to work for GM rather than Ford. I couldn't get an interview because i was laid off (as opposed to fired)? Seems like a bad trend to start. Of course would you really want to work for a company that is suspicious of your history BEFORE you got there?