Support NeoGAF

[bridegur]

Recently I was called in for an interview at a company seeking a new secretarial position. Being unemployed, this sounded like a great opportunity so I went for it. Everything in the interview seemed fine up until about two minutes in, when the employer told me "I'm not trying to be discriminatory, but we want a female for this position." This posed a problem seeing as I'm not female, so he told me it wasn't going to work and then went on to explain how fantastic the job was going to be for some lucky lady. Anyway, I'm now wondering if there is anything I can do legally about this, and what the best option would be.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

that was your cue to come on to him. You failed.

 

[Kon Tiki]

I thought that said gender-bendng hiring. I need sleep.

 

[lexi]

I thought that said gender-bendng hiring. I need sleep.

I, too. Consider me dissapointed. As an alternate solution, apply for the interview again and go in drag. Then you don't get the job sue for discrimination.

 

[StrikerObi]

I just finished up a law class, and this is sitll fresh in my head. Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act it is unlwaful to hire or promote based on the following: race, color, sex (gender), religion, or national origin. I'd say you have a nice open and shut law suit on your hands.

Note: It was later amended (or maybe it was a seperate act, I don't remember) to include age.

Go find a lawyer.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I just finished up a law class, and this is sitll fresh in my head. Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act it is unlwaful to hire or promote based on the following: race, color, sex (gender), religion, or national origin. I'd say you have a nice open and shut law suit on your hands.

Note: It was later amended (or maybe it was a seperate act, I don't remember) to include age.

Go find a lawyer.

There's been some recent cases that tested this, though I don't recall the outcome. I remember a lawsuit by a man who wanted to work at Hooters as a waiter, but they would not hire him because he's not a woman with big breasts. He sued for discrimination. The case was basically testing if a company can decide to only hire one gender for a job that both could do. Not sure, but I think he lost. It could have some bearing on this case, because they stated they are only interested in women. If you go the lawer route I'd look into it.

 

[Silent Death]

How would he prove it? I doubt the guy will show up in court and admit to not hiring him because he's not a woman.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Recently I was called in for an interview at a company seeking a new secretarial position. Being unemployed, this sounded like a great opportunity so I went for it. Everything in the interview seemed fine up until about two minutes in, when the employer told me "I'm not trying to be discriminatory, but we want a female for this position." This posed a problem seeing as I'm not female, so he told me it wasn't going to work and then went on to explain how fantastic the job was going to be for some lucky lady. Anyway, I'm now wondering if there is anything I can do legally about this, and what the best option would be.

On it's face this sounds truly illogical. If the company was looking for a female then why did they even call you in for an interview. Unless your first name is something like Pat, Chris or Shannon or some other gender neutral name.

That being said you would have a difficult time proving in court that he said what he said without witnesses. It becomes a he said he said thing that that would be difficult to prove

I say chalk this one up to the female circle of empowerment and look for another job somewhere else.

 

[fart]

pigeonholing secretarial jobs as women's work is hardly female empowerment.

i agree you're pretty much SOL on the whole legal thing though.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
§703(e)(1)
It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.

Generally, there is nothing unlawful about a place of business having particular standards regarding who they wish to hire for a position demanding of certain qualifications. Afterall, there are many legitimate reasons as to why a business may choose to hire a woman over a man. However, it is the employer's responsibility to prove that under the circumstances, such standards exist as a bona fide occupational qualification and not an exercise of unjust descrimination.

Someone mentioned the Civil Rights case involving Hooters, which resulted in Hooters being required to hire men as "Hooters Persons". Hooters claimed in the lawsuit that the position of "Hooters Girl" served the purpose of providing "vicarious sexual recreation", which made gender a "bona fide occupational qualification" in their employee's line of work. The only reason that Hooters lost the case is that in their advertising, Hooters was described as being a "family restaurant". As the outcome of that case shows, actually proving bona fide occupational qualification is a very difficult thing to do in most cases.

If you feel that there was no legitimate reason for the secretarial position to have been denied to you, then maybe you should see an attorney. Even if the employer can provide a reason for such hiring "standards", there is still a chance that it would not hold up in court as a bona fide occupational qualification. I also agree that proving you were denied on grounds of gender would be difficult, unless you have some way of proving that you were denied the job for that particular reason. Afterall, the burden of proof first must fall upon you as the claimant.

I'm sorry that you were denied a job under such an unfair set of pretences. I hope that you do see an attorney regardless, as only they -- not GAF -- are qualified to properly educate you and provide advice in this situation. Good luck!