That doesn’t close the loophole, it adds a constraint.
Yes, it does close the loophole. You say conceal the cause (intent to discriminate) and you can get away with as much effect (disproportionate exclusion) as you want. Except the law already specifies that the effect is punishable as well as the cause.
So now the best you can do, assuming the populations are equally competent and suited for the job, is 20% discrimination.
And of course, in the real world, populations usually differ in their suitability for the job. Blacks tend not to have as many CS degrees as whites, for example. So if you are an employer of CS degrees, you may not be able to get away with any discrimination before you have breached the 20% limit, and may need to discriminate against the non-blacks in order to be compliant.
Besides, it’s not like muggles are a protected class.
I would suspect that if the US Muggle legal system had anything to say about it, they would be. If magical-ness is conferred by genes, then it’s violating either the general racial guideline or it’s violating recent laws (signed by GWB, IIRC) forbidding employer discrimination based on genetics (in the context of genome sequencing, true, but probably general). If it’s not conferred by genes, then there may be a general cultural basis on which to sue (Muggles as disabled because they lack an ability necessary for basic functioning in Wizarding society, perhaps).
You can put degree requirements on the job advertisement, which should act as a filter on applications, something that can’t be caught by the 80% rule.
(Of course, universities tend to use racial criteria for admission in the US, something which, ironically, can be an incentive for companies to discriminate based on race even amongst applicants with CS degrees.)
The 80% rule is only part of it. Again, racist requirements is an obvious loophole you should expect to have been addressed; you can only get away with a little covert discrimination if any.
For example, a fire department requiring applicants to carry a 100 lb (50 kg) pack up three flights of stairs. The upper-body strength required typically has an adverse impact on women. The fire department would have to show that this requirement is job-related for the position. This typically requires employers to conduct validation studies that address both the Uniform Guidelines and professional standards.
If you add unnecessary requirements as a stealth filter, how do you show the requirements are job-related?
I thought we were talking about how to use necessary requirements without risking a suit, not how to conceal racial preferences by using cleverly chosen proxy requirements. But it looks like you can’t use job application degree requirements without showing a business need either.
But it looks like you can’t use job application degree requirements without showing a business need either.
The relevant landmark case in U.S. law is the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. The court ruled that not just testing of prospective employees, but also academic degree requirements that have disparate impact across protected groups are illegal unless they are “demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance.”
Now of course, “a reasonable measure of job performance” is a vague criterion, which depends on controversial facts as well as subjective opinion. To take only the most notable example, these people would probably say that IQ tests are a reasonable measure of performance for a great variety of jobs, but the present legal precedent disagrees. This situation has given rise to endless reams of of case law and a legal minefield that takes experts to navigate.
At the end, as might be expected, what sorts of tests and academic requirements are permitted to different institutions in practice depends on arbitrary custom and the public perception of their status. The de facto rules are only partly codified formally. Thus, to take again the most notable example, the army and the universities are allowed to use what are IQ tests in all but name, which is an absolute taboo for almost any other institution.
I thought we were talking about how to use necessary requirements without risking a suit, not how to conceal racial preferences by using cleverly chosen proxy requirements.
I wasn’t. I was talking about how the obvious loopholes are already closed or have been heavily restricted (even at the cost of false positives), and hence how Quirrel’s comments are naive and uninformed.
But it looks like you can’t use job application degree requirements without showing a business need either.
Yes, it does close the loophole. You say conceal the cause (intent to discriminate) and you can get away with as much effect (disproportionate exclusion) as you want. Except the law already specifies that the effect is punishable as well as the cause.
So now the best you can do, assuming the populations are equally competent and suited for the job, is 20% discrimination.
And of course, in the real world, populations usually differ in their suitability for the job. Blacks tend not to have as many CS degrees as whites, for example. So if you are an employer of CS degrees, you may not be able to get away with any discrimination before you have breached the 20% limit, and may need to discriminate against the non-blacks in order to be compliant.
I would suspect that if the US Muggle legal system had anything to say about it, they would be. If magical-ness is conferred by genes, then it’s violating either the general racial guideline or it’s violating recent laws (signed by GWB, IIRC) forbidding employer discrimination based on genetics (in the context of genome sequencing, true, but probably general). If it’s not conferred by genes, then there may be a general cultural basis on which to sue (Muggles as disabled because they lack an ability necessary for basic functioning in Wizarding society, perhaps).
You can put degree requirements on the job advertisement, which should act as a filter on applications, something that can’t be caught by the 80% rule.
(Of course, universities tend to use racial criteria for admission in the US, something which, ironically, can be an incentive for companies to discriminate based on race even amongst applicants with CS degrees.)
The 80% rule is only part of it. Again, racist requirements is an obvious loophole you should expect to have been addressed; you can only get away with a little covert discrimination if any.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact#Unintentional_discrimination :
If you add unnecessary requirements as a stealth filter, how do you show the requirements are job-related?
I thought we were talking about how to use necessary requirements without risking a suit, not how to conceal racial preferences by using cleverly chosen proxy requirements. But it looks like you can’t use job application degree requirements without showing a business need either.
topynate:
The relevant landmark case in U.S. law is the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. The court ruled that not just testing of prospective employees, but also academic degree requirements that have disparate impact across protected groups are illegal unless they are “demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance.”
Now of course, “a reasonable measure of job performance” is a vague criterion, which depends on controversial facts as well as subjective opinion. To take only the most notable example, these people would probably say that IQ tests are a reasonable measure of performance for a great variety of jobs, but the present legal precedent disagrees. This situation has given rise to endless reams of of case law and a legal minefield that takes experts to navigate.
At the end, as might be expected, what sorts of tests and academic requirements are permitted to different institutions in practice depends on arbitrary custom and the public perception of their status. The de facto rules are only partly codified formally. Thus, to take again the most notable example, the army and the universities are allowed to use what are IQ tests in all but name, which is an absolute taboo for almost any other institution.
I wasn’t. I was talking about how the obvious loopholes are already closed or have been heavily restricted (even at the cost of false positives), and hence how Quirrel’s comments are naive and uninformed.
Yes, that doesn’t surprise me in the least.