Forums
Minimum Job Qualifications
Legal Forum
Minimum Job Qualifications
Discuss employment-law issues such as family leave, overtime, disabilities law, harassment, immigration and termination.
I need to obtain some case law references for the following situation. We have a position where according to the department head, a 4 year college degree is required. When I asked if there was anyone
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId54
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId54Discussion:DiscussionId17468
Forums » Topic Forums » Legal Forum » Minimum Job Qualifications
|
Minimum Job Qualifications
posted at 7/28/1999 10:16 PM EDT
|
Posts: 90
First: 6/23/1999 Last: 9/26/2001 |
I need to obtain some case law references for the following situation. We have a position where according to the department head, a 4 year college degree is required. When I asked if there was anyone in the position that did not have a 4 year degree, the answer was yes, 3 people in fact. Therefore, I recommended that the 4 year degree be designated as "preferred" rather than required since there were people in the position that did not meet that minimum requirement.
Of course the department head does not want to hear that whatsoever. I want to provide them with the substantiation for this and remember having had to review it previously in another position but I no longer have those references. Could anyone give me the specifics on that area? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!! |
|
|
Minimum Job Qualifications
posted at 7/29/1999 4:22 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 946
First: 6/14/1999 Last: 12/14/2005 |
Take a look at the landmark US Supreme Court case of Griggs v. Duke Power (in the 60's)that dealt with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act..I don't have the exact cite Look at 29 CFR 1607 for EEOC regulations on selection standards. Whatever selection standards you have, you need to be prepared to show business necessity and validity in case you get challenged that the degree has a disparate impact on minorities and women. |
|
|
Minimum Job Qualifications
posted at 7/30/1999 12:58 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2217
First: 6/16/1999 Last: 12/13/2001 |
Take a look at the posting and responses to a July 20 posting regarding "hiring discrimination." I discuss Griggs in my (second) response. As requested, I'll give you some case cites below that may be helpful, starting with Grigss v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), referenced in an earlier response.
In Griggs, the Supreme Court established the principle of disparate impact discrimination, which was further developed through a series of susequent Supreme Court and lower court decisions, and the 1991 Civil Rights Act. Under disparate impact theory, an employer can be liable for discrimination, even in the absence of discriminatory intent. Such a claim is predicated on "proof that the employer utilizes 'employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but ... in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.'" Mullin v. Raytheon Co., 164 F.3d 696 (1st Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). In Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), the Supreme Court left open the issue of whether disparate impact is available under the ADEA (federal age discrimination statute); some circuits in the federal system allow disparate impact claims under the ADEA; others do not. Take a look at Mullin, above, for a discussion of the viability of ADEA disparate impact claims in various circuits. State FEP laws may vary on this issue as well. As for Griggs itself, the facts concerned the effect on employment opportunities of an employer's policy of requiring a high school education or passing of a standardized general intelligence test as a condition of employment (or transfer). Neither requirement had been shown to be significantly related to successful job performance, and they operated to disqualify African-Americans at a substantially higher rate than white applicants. Further, the jobs in question formerly had been filled only by white employees as part of a long-standing practice of giving preference to whites. To analyze the viability of a disparate impact age claim in your situation, of course, one would need to know the applicable circuit and state. Regarding groups protected by Title VII, one would need to know whether your policy operated to exclude a protected group (at least in part a statistical issue), and, if so, whether it is significantly related to successful job performance (the precise contours of the standard will vary depending on where you are, etc., but this is the concept). The fact that your policy is not evenly applied at least theoretically opens the claim that it is selectively applied for intentionally discriminatory reasons (a disparate treatment claim). Unfortunately, I am not familiar with a case interpreting your precise policy. For analogous cases, take a look at Melendez v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 79 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 1996) and United States v. South Carolina, 445 F.Supp. 1094 (D.S.C. 1977), aff'd, 434 U.S. 1026 (1978). |
Forums » Topic Forums » Legal Forum » Minimum Job Qualifications
