Keep Identifying Information out of Job Applications and Advertisements

18 September 2017 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Scott T. Allen

Certain job advertisements have drawn media scrutiny in recent weeks, including dozens of postings seeking applicants with a “neutral” accent for language teaching, sales, and IT support jobs. Another trend, in the opposite direction, is that some advertisements are specifically directed at foreign workers with H-1B visas, as one headline said “Java Developer – (H-1B Only).”

While these are both fairly obvious examples of national origin discrimination, the recent ads are an important reminder that employers should double-check job postings and applications to make sure they do not explicitly or implicitly exclude certain groups or elicit information about any protected characteristic.   Federal and state law do not permit employers to consider an applicant’s race, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, or any other protected categories when making hiring decisions.  Accordingly, job advertisements must be “neutral” and cannot favor younger workers, for example, by seeking “recent college graduates,” which tends to exclude older workers. The only exception is if age, or another characteristic, is a bona fide requirement of the job.

With respect to applications, the easiest way to defend against an applicant’s claim that he or she was discriminated against in the hiring process on the basis of a particular characteristic is by not knowing about that characteristic in the first place. Therefore, employers should not ask applicants any questions on an employment application form that would reveal any protected characteristics or categories.  While federal contractors subject to affirmative action requirements must ask applicants to complete “voluntary self-identification” forms to keep track of applicants’ race, gender, and other information, such self-identification forms must always be kept separate from application materials.

Below are examples of questions that should never be included on any employment application because they reveal an applicant’s protected characteristic:

  • Date of birth – reveals the applicant’s age. (You may ask if an applicant is at least 18 years old or can furnish proof of age, if age is a job requirement.)
  • Graduation dates and when attended school – reveals, or at least suggests, the applicant’s age. (Simply ask whether the applicant has graduated or holds a degree.)
  • Maiden name – reveals marital status and disproportionately affects women. (This may be requested separately as part of a background check.)
  • Citizenship and national origin. (You may ask if the applicant is legally authorized to work in the United States.)
  • Language proficiency – may reveal the applicant’s national origin. (You should only ask about language proficiency if it is required for the job.)
  • Child care arrangements or children – reveals the applicant’s family responsibilities and disproportionately affects women.

Even if an application question does not reveal an applicant’s protected status, the question may still be problematic if it can be used in a discriminatory way. For example, because certain racial minority groups have higher rates of arrest and conviction records, the EEOC believes that blanket exclusions for applicants with criminal records are discriminatory. The same goes for asking applicants about their credit history.

Additionally, the use of facially “neutral” criteria to screen out applicants may be unlawful if the exclusion is not job related. Height restrictions, for example, can disproportionately affect women and certain racial minority groups, so employers should not ask about height on an application, unless a height requirement is necessary to perform the particular job.

There are many other legal issues associated with job advertisements and applications, and you should consider having legal counsel review those materials to ensure they are in compliance with state and federal law.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.