Religious Discrimination?
 

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is definitely fishy.

I think that's more likely than religious reasons, given the facts you cite, even if they do both attend the same church.

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".

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?

I am sorry Kommandant I meant to say Per se.

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: