Religious Discrimination?

[GoldenRivet]

Hypothetical scenario based on a discussion with a friend of mine... looking for outside opinions


---


Two supervisor positions becomes available for hiring from within the company any interested applicant must apply and interview with the hiring supervisor.

Employee A, B, C, D and E apply for the position

Employee A - 30 days experience with the company, is a temp to hire, no prior supervisory experience

Employee B - 5 years experience with the company, is in management and trainer position at this time

Employee C - 3 years experience with the company, is a trainer and section manager

Employee D - 1 years experience with the company, no experience as trainer or manager, is a good employee and applying for the interview experience

Employee E - 1 year experience with the company, is a trainer and section manager

after a lengthy interview process the positions are filled

Employee A and B are given the jobs, the remainder are rejected and return to their stations

on the date of the posting of the hired persons, it comes to light that the hiring supervisor, employee A and B all are Mormon and attend the same church in the small community.

none of the rejected individuals are mormon (or are of no denomination)

seeing as employee A is obviously under-qualified for the position that was filled... were the applicants who were qualified for the position discriminated against based upon their religion?

:hmmm:

[Armistead]

They're many other possible factors involved, so hard to know for sure, but seems fishy to me.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Yeah it could happen, as could someone not being hired because one of the other applicants was a friend of someone in the company hypothetically of course.

[Red October1984]

This really depends on how you look at it. There are two sides to every story. :hmmm:

[razark]

Not enough information to say for sure. Employee B is understandable.

It's Employee A that should raise eyebrows in HR, and the fact that A was chosen over other potentially better candidates should provoke a review of the hiring process by someone in the company. Even if it is not a case of discrimination, and A was the best candidate, it still looks extremely odd, and it would be in the company's best interest to be ready to defend the hiring if some formal complaint was filed.

[August]

While one could possibly make a case against Employee A, it's apparent that Employee B has the best qualifications of the lot, at least if you count seniority.

But as folks have pointed out there could be other aspects of this.

First Employee D is a non starter. Not only does he have no qualifications he isn't seriously going for the job. As the hiring manager I might even be inclined to see his interview as an unwelcome waste of my time.

As for the other two there could be personality conflicts. The hiring manager has a right to hire people he can get along with. Compatibility among team members, especially at management levels, can be more important for success than professional qualifications. The last thing a boss needs is conflict in his team.

[Stealhead]

Hard to say for sure really if they all go to the same church that can help because they know the person an known face always has a harder time to an unknown.

Also giving an under qualified person a position is not uncommon.Sometimes they do this because they want a person that is fresh and maybe they feel that they can mold.Sometimes it is a good risk other times it is a bad one.

Also unless they expressly asked during the interview religious information you can not prove that they discriminated even if they did.Hypothetically speaking.

There needs to be a "not enough information" option.

[Aramike]

This is why discrimination is nearly impossible to prove ... how were the interviews? How do you prove the intent of the hiring manager? There's nothing illegal to being a bad hiring manager or going with a known quantity. Sure, maybe they are all mormons and if you could prove THAT as the reason one got the job over the other.

But what if the underqualified one was hiring simply because he was a friend? That isn't illegal.

[GoldenRivet]

apparently this is something that happened to fiance's friend who lives in Pennsylvania and they were discussing it by phone

1. i think the gal got screwed over as its fishy the lady that got the promotion was hired roughly a month ago after being encouraged to apply for the job by the hiring manager.

2. i think it would be very hard to prove any sort of discrimination

what i think we have here is a case of the buddy system in hiring screwing over some folks who deserve the job based on the merits of their accomplishments, seniority and qualifications who were passed over in favor of someone who happened to be a friend of the right manager.

[Sailor Steve]

the lady that got the promotion was hired roughly a month ago after being encouraged to apply for the job by the hiring manager.
That is definitely fishy.

what i think we have here is a case of the buddy system
I think that's more likely than religious reasons, given the facts you cite, even if they do both attend the same church.

[Stealhead]

Well in that case it is not really discrimination per say.They just hire friends which really is not illegal.

I am speaking generally here...

Even a good HR person does not always pick the most qualified person.A person does have to "fit" into the company they are applying for and "fit in" to a specific job.A more qualified person may not have the attitude that a less qualified person has.There are many factors in hiring.The idea is to hire the best fit for the position that is not always the most qualified person.

Another factor with jobs and promotions no matter what someone is going to feel left out or offended.Not getting a job or a promotion is always a let down.


Take into account that what you have been told is hear say.I would also have to know the personality of the person making the claims as well.
What exactly is this business? Small company or large what kind of work (sounds like lower level factory work which sucks anyway).

If the claims are true it likely is a crap organization anyway and either find another job or deal with it until a better one comes along if it is that bad.Of course most every job has some buddy system stuff going on,brown noses, back stabbers,people that claim others work. Even the military is not free from this we called it "below the desk".

[Sailor Steve]

per say.
AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Why do you hate me so? I think you want me to pull my hair out! :x

[Buddahaid]

AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Why do you hate me so? I think you want me to pull my hair out! :x

Que per se, per se? :har:

EDIT: I forgot to vote. At first I deemed it inconclusive because the management could well have thought the newer hire a better fit. With the additional information it leans toward someone being pushed out but what constitutes proof?

[Stealhead]

I am sorry Kommandant I meant to say Per se.

[Hottentot]

Why do you hate me so? I think you want me to pull my hair out! :x

Your just mad because your taking the grammar of your language too seriously and loose your patience because of that. Just try to loosen up every time someone does that and valla: you'll find out that your in piece again and your bloodpressure isn't rising anymore. :yep:

[Aramike]

AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Why do you hate me so? I think you want me to pull my hair out! :xHAH!

I hope this doesn't happen to you alot, but just in case you should aks everyone to pacifically be sure to use proper grammer.

[GoldenRivet]

Take into account that what you have been told is hear say.

What exactly is this business? Small company or large what kind of work (sounds like lower level factory work which sucks anyway).

Its a somewhat nationwide corporation with federal contracts. not a 30 employee small business we are talking about here.

from what i understand a part time job opened in their local office and the hiring manager encouraged a young lady to apply. She was actively seeking a job and was hired by a temp agency who placed her into the position. in such a case it is my understanding that you are an employe of the agency not the actual business

she worked the position for about 30 days - it was really more or less a "gofer" role requiring few real skills

a supervisory position opened up

historically (i am told) this corporation hires supervisors "from within" ie not off the street, not from other "vendors" and not from other agencies. this disqualified the woman from applying for the position because she was a temp and worked for "ABC staffing services" or whatever

the hiring manager opened the position up to "all vendors and temps" the day he posted the job, thus giving her (and really any other person on the planet) the ability to apply and she did.

several well qualified candidates, most of whom had 3 to 5 years seniority applied

all were interviewed and the job posting removed and the person who a month ago never knew the company existed was promoted to supervisor after 30ish days on the job as an entry level temp.

it is at this point where kathy told nancy told karen told becky :rolleyes: that the hiring manager and the two people who help him conduct interviews go to the same church as the temp girl turned supervisor.

needless to say feathers are ruffled, and considering its mostly women involved in the situation i have been listening to it since about 6pm :har:

[Simmy]

seeing as employee A is obviously under-qualified for the position that was filled... were the applicants who were qualified for the position discriminated against based upon their religion?

NO, they were discriminated against based on their lack of religion.:haha:
Get more done with Mormons...:har:

[Stealhead]

Its a somewhat nationwide corporation with federal contracts. not a 30 employee small business we are talking about here.

from what i understand a part time job opened in their local office and the hiring manager encouraged a young lady to apply. She was actively seeking a job and was hired by a temp agency who placed her into the position. in such a case it is my understanding that you are an employe of the agency not the actual business

she worked the position for about 30 days - it was really more or less a "gofer" role requiring few real skills

a supervisory position opened up

historically (i am told) this corporation hires supervisors "from within" ie not off the street, not from other "vendors" and not from other agencies. this disqualified the woman from applying for the position because she was a temp and worked for "ABC staffing services" or whatever

the hiring manager opened the position up to "all vendors and temps" the day he posted the job, thus giving her (and really any other person on the planet) the ability to apply and she did.

several well qualified candidates, most of whom had 3 to 5 years seniority applied

all were interviewed and the job posting removed and the person who a month ago never knew the company existed was promoted to supervisor after 30ish days on the job as an entry level temp.

it is at this point where kathy told nancy told karen told becky :rolleyes: that the hiring manager and the two people who help him conduct interviews go to the same church as the temp girl turned supervisor.

needless to say feathers are ruffled, and considering its mostly women involved in the situation i have been listening to it since about 6pm :har:


Now it is more clear it sounds to me like the hiring manager has some (cough cough) interest in the girl he is horny and he gave her the job hoping for something in return.

the part about them going to the same church sounds like a bit of the old "telephone" game.

Of course I notice that many companies say they only promote from within yet they do not always do it even in more legitimate cases.

Of course I was not trying to say that small companies are crappy often they are very good employers.Of my friends and neighbors the ones that work for smaller companies seem happier.

Oh and since SWMBO is talking about it best to say "yes you are correct dear what a scum bag manager".:D

[AVGWarhawk]

I see it was a particular woman that was with the company 30 days that got the nod. Was the final decision maker a male? What other assets was the candidate bringing to the table. I'm with Stealhead. The fix was in.

[Skybird]

By the way you told the story, the question cannot be answered. Coincidence is not the same like causality. The causality cannot be shown from the info given.

What to do? Run an examination and question the responsible on why he employed A despite his obvious underqualification. Depending on the answers, overturn his decision or not.

[Feuer Frei!]

As if the hirer will inform us of why he made the decision to hire.
No amount of questioning will give us the true answer.

And why should he?

[Skybird]

As if the hirer will inform us of why he made the decision to hire.
No amount of questioning will give us the true answer.

And why should he?

A superior boss or board can demand the hirer to explain and give good reasons on why he hired an underqualified candidate. His decision can be overturned if he has no reasonable explanations. The records on the other candidates still can be compared again.

The hirer can even be removed from his post for nepotism.

[Feuer Frei!]

That may be so however:

Giving feedback on a recruitment is a favour, not an obligation, due to the time it takes to compile the reasons why a employee was hired.
Bosses in a lot of cases are actually under order from lawyers to not get into the reasons why or why not a person was hired. In case a unsuccessful applicant isn't 'happy' with the explanation given and wants to take it further. Discriminatory reason, i'm looking at you.

Also a lot aren't comfortable with sharing the reasons with you because of personal and awkward details.
Or, they did tell you the reason and you still aren't happy with the feedback given.
There are a raft of reasons why a hirer is not obligated to give you feedback on your job application.
Sure, you can appeal and have it reviewed, but let's face it, unless it's a high-roller job application for a international company, with a panel of 8 interviewing you, then you will need to deal with the answer of: "unfortunately at this time your application was unsuccessful".
If you ask for further clarification, even then you are never going to get the real reason why a applicant got the job over you, even though they were less qualified than you.

I'll add also to this, which is not hypothetical: http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/business/-bosses-more-likely-to-hire-someone-they-fancy-says-study/4081.article

[Skybird]

Well, I stick to that thought experiment as outlined in this thread.

If reality in a country is such as you describe and regulations - like certainly in the EU - would hinder me to fill jobs as I see fit, instead to give quotas to people I see as unqualified or for other reasons would not like to employ, I would not launch a business in such a country. Doing so would mean to make myself vulnerable to a policy and a political style that I do not like and do not wish to support by my investments and personal resources.

I never felt like wanting to be a businessman, I simply do not have the according genes, but if I would do it and found a company or business myself, I would not do it inside Europe or North America. Too over-regulated, too much political madness, to much untrustworthiness in the legal stability of law and order.

Honestly said I would not know where to go. South Africa maybe. Brazil, with great caution. Everything, just not the EU, where bureaucracy and growing redistribution and PC ideology is going to gag and strangle all and everything.

I'm quite happy not to be a businessowner. Not my cup of tea. - He who has nothing to lose cannot be blackmailed, robbed or threatened.