Hiring discrimination at large semiconductor company

[azitguy]

I work at a very large semiconductor company in AZ in an IT automation group. Recently a couple of positions opened for IT related jobs in my group. After talking to my supervisor and explaining that I had tried to get son son interviews after he graduated from ASU last year with an IT related degree, he told me to submit my son's resume for an interview for one of the positions. After not hearing anything for about a week I asked what was going on. I was told that they interviewed the friend of another manager who was hispanic, and that they would only be considering and interviewing external (outside the company) candidates that were considered 'silver bullets' (black or hispanic races) for these positions. This company is a government contractor.

Can this blatant discrimination based on race be legal?

 

[Beth3]

It depends. What we don't know is whether this company has a specific racial and/or gender diversity quota to meet, which sometimes is required of a government contractor.

It's more likely than not that they don't have a specific quota (those are fairly rare) but rather believe that they should have a racially diverse workforce - which is an important objective for any employer but discrimination laws cannot be violated along the way.

If your son wishes to pursue this, he is free to file a complaint of prohibited discrimination with the EEOC. (Note I said your son - you cannot do it for him, nor are you the injured party. You obviously have incredibly pertinent information to provide to support his discrimination claim however.)

 

[azitguy]

Beth3,

Thanks for the reply. I do not believe my company has any specific quotas. Here is a recent post and an answer to a corporate internal Q/A web site that speaks to the quota question (it seems others here are asking about this companies hiring policies, this wasn't the only question...). This answer was provided by the senior vice president of human resources. I have x'ed out the company name. Note the last paragraph in her response:

****************************************************

Q I understand that xxxxx is trying to increase its diversity and that special hiring arrangements are in place for certain minorities. Is this true? If so, this strikes me as unfair and possibly discriminatory.

A It is true that xxxxx is committed to seeking out and hiring truly outstanding external candidates with special skills, even though a job requisition may not be currently open. Our objective here is simple: to hire the best and the brightest people before our competitors do. You may have heard this called "silver bullet" hiring. Although it is getting more attention now due to its use to expand our diversity, we have done this kind of hiring for as long as xxxxx has been in existence.

Why are we using this process to increase our diversity? To do exactly that, increase our diversity. xxxxx is not currently a leader in representation of women in grades 7+, exempt African-Americans, and Hispanics at senior levels. Thus we are on the lookout for candidates here who might be exceptional.

The actual numbers of underrepresented minority candidates available each year in the job market are extremely small. For example, in electrical and computer engineering, U.S. universities produced only 29 Hispanic and just 37 African-American Ph.D.s in 2003. We need to be able to act promptly and nimbly to recruit some of these top candidates.

This is key: We believe as a corporation that hiring the very best talent, of all demographics, from all across the labor pool, will make us stronger as a company, and advance our global leadership position. A truly diverse workforce enriches us with different opinions, experiences, and viewpoints. A diverse workforce helps guide us toward wiser business decisions that benefit stockholders, customers, and employees.

A fundamental principle we follow in all our hiring is that candidates must be highly qualified. We will never "set aside" jobs or opportunities for lesser or unqualified candidates, nor do we establish "quotas" of any kind. Our strong meritocracy tradition and culture demands that we hire only those individuals whom we believe will be very successful at xxxxx. Our diverse candidates fit that bill and any implication to the contrary is simply inaccurate.

xxxxxx xxxxxx, senior vice president
Human Resources

 

[Beth3]

I agree that it does not sound as though they have any federally mandated diversity quota to fill.

There are many benefits for an employer to have a diverse workforce (which means considerably more than just race), which has nothing to do with the government. As I said, diversity is a goal many employers strive for because it simply makes good business sense. HOWEVER, an employer cannot violate Title VII in the name of diversity.

Discrimination in employment practices based on race is prohibited. Period. So if your son was ruled out of consideration simply because he is white, they are violating the law. It's no different than if the company president was the grand wizard of the KKK and ruled out all black and hispanic candidates. Your company's goals are far nobler but it's still illegal.

 

[azitguy]

Oh I realize diversity means more than race...

A couple of months back I had my 12 year old at work for a bring yer kid to work day. We had a group meeting and my 12 year old was there. Our manager (at the time) announced that we could hire a couple of RCG's (recent college grads) in our group, but that they had to be female. After the meeting my 12 year old asked what was up with that, why they said we can only hire girls.

 

[Beth3]

Ai yi yi.

I have a feeling that a likely well-intentioned corporate initiative to create a more diverse workplace has taken on a life of it's own and become interpreted as a corporate directive and damn the consequences. Yikes. I wouldn't want to be in your employer's shoes when a complaint of prohibited discrimination is made and there are an untold number of witnesses who were present when statements like that were made.

It's just as wrong not to hire someone because they are male or white as it is not to hire someone because they're not.

 

[azitguy]

So how do affrmative action initiatives apply here? Also, does the 1978 Bakke case give this employer any support in using race as one of the factors in hiring decisions?