One of the perverse features of today's recession-punished labor market is some employers are refusing to consider hiring people who are unemployed. The situation was reported on last spring by CNN Money and other media. This week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a hearing to discuss whether it is illegal employment discrimination to refuse to consider hiring the unemployed.

What constitutes illegal discrimination? The discrimination has to be against a "protected class" -- a group that has suffered discrimination based on a status it can't change, like gender, race or age -- or shouldn't be forced to change, like religion. Some states protect additional groups, but the EEOC enforces federal law, so that was the hearing's focus.

What Does the Evidence Say?

Yes, It's Illegal

Christine L. Owens of the National Employment Law Project, Fatima Goss Graves of the National Women's Law Center, and Algernon Austin of the Economic Policy Institute testified that it's probably illegal discrimination to refuse to consider employing an unemployed person.

Owens testified both to the widespread nature of the "No Unemployed Need Apply" (NUNA) phenomenon and its apparent discriminatory impact against two protected classes: nonwhite workers and workers over 40 years old. Both groups tend to be unemployed much longer regardless of their qualifications and, as a result, are particularly impacted by such a policy.

Graves added that in certain instances, women would be disproportionately hurt by a NUNA policy. She identified three: older women and women of color -- really a subset of the group Owens testified about; women in occupations dominated by men (because women in these fields are laid off first and for longer); and women who leave the workforce temporarily to be caregivers. Austin cited minority unemployment statistics to emphasize the impact on people of color.

No, It's Not Illegal

The other side was represented by James S. Urban, a partner with law firm Jones Day, who represents employers, and Fernan R. Cepero, speaking for the Society for Human Resource Management.

Urban directly challenged both premises: that NUNA exists, and that if it did, it would be discriminatory, citing employment statistics. Unfortunately, the witnesses' discrimination statistics weren't directly comparable, and so they basically talked past each other on the issue. For example, Owens focused on long-term unemployment, nonwhites and older workers. Urban focused on overall unemployment rates for nonwhites, particularly Hispanics, in his analysis.

Indeed, the testimony from Helen Norton of the University of Colorado Law School showed how complex the discrimination analysis would be. She noted that if an ad says the unemployed need not apply, they wouldn't apply. So discriminatory impact couldn't be measured by looking at who applied and was rejected.

Fernan R. Cepero, speaking for the Society for Human Resource Management, didn't address whether a NUNA policy would be illegal, saying simply that it was a bad idea -- and that to his knowledge, it didn't exist. However, Cepero noted that in some occupations -- specifically IT and web design -- skills could quickly get stale, so if a job candidate was unemployed for a significant amount of time, it could be a legitimate concern to an employer.

Valid as that point is, it doesn't address the apparently discriminatory impact of refusing to consider unemployed candidates. For example, someone could have kept his skills fresh by taking classes. Or, at a previous job, he may have used cutting-edge software giving him skills that are still more advanced than someone currently employed. That's the problem with categorical bans.

Illegal or not, a NUNA policy is obviously wrong: At a time of high unemployment, the jobless include many talented, high quality workers. Employment status these days is a particularly poor proxy for worker quality. Let's hope the practice -- to whatever extent it exists -- quickly ends. And if it doesn't, here's hoping some class action lawsuits -- or EEOC action -- puts a stop to it.

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

Goal Setting

Want to succeed? Then you need goals!

View Course »

Intro to different retirement accounts

What does it mean to have a 401(k)? IRA?

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

229 Comments

Filter by:
Barbara

Well I quess maybe people can work for Osama Bin Laden. He doesn't discriminate like a lot of AMERICAN companies do, compamies that fly the Big American red, white, and blue flag outside their corporate offices, but who are really not for much of what this country stands for. Hey the say learn a new trade. Learning how to build roadeside bombs sounds like a trade and it pays better than a lot of jobs here pay. Just trying to get people to think about who the real enemy is at times. Foriegn or domestic. A person can crash planes into a building and make people suffer or a person at a corporation can send jobs overseas and make people suffer just in a different way.

February 20 2011 at 1:32 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
leblancaj

When I was first job hunting, the general attitude was that you should keep a job until you found another one. Therefore, if you didn't have a job, you would have to do extra work to show that you were a person who applied good judgment to his lifestyle and job work habits. The same concerns are operating now. An employer wants to know that a person has good work habits and a lifestyle that won't have him absent every Friday and every Monday. If you're doing volunteer work, that shouldn't be hard to show.

February 18 2011 at 10:18 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
shiloh1388

Employers not hiring "the unemployed". Yes, this policy is grotesque discrimination. Would anyone in their right mind debate that it's not discrimination??? If there not in their right mind and breaking the law, then jail time is appropriate. And the crazier, the longer the jail time. Then the "employers" can have their own taste of unemployment, jail time, hunger, etc. It will add character as "experiential learning".

February 18 2011 at 7:27 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
CnOWrms1

Where are those jobs, libs? Can we say Obama's stimulus failed? YES, WE CAN.

February 18 2011 at 6:25 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
CnOWrms1

Capitalism is the back bone of this nation. Without corporate America, what do we do, just hand ourselves over to Venezuela. Govt should work for the people and can't manage the job. Corporations manage, almost naturally. Almost divine. LOL!

February 18 2011 at 6:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
CnOWrms1

dem unemployed libs don't hunt no more

February 18 2011 at 5:57 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jayne

**** corporate america

February 18 2011 at 4:45 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
CnOWrms1

Libs think they should walk out. They even walk off their own tv show sometimes. Run, libs, run.

February 18 2011 at 4:39 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
3 replies to CnOWrms1's comment
CnOWrms1

In decision making, when in doubt, don't.

February 18 2011 at 4:21 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to CnOWrms1's comment
CnOWrms1

I don't doubt that.

February 18 2011 at 4:31 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
CnOWrms1

We get to buy what we want. We get to vote for who we want. We should also get to hire who we want.

February 18 2011 at 4:18 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
3 replies to CnOWrms1's comment