Social Question

JLeslie's avatar

Are you less likely to hire a minority because if they underperform it is more troublesome to get rid of them?

Asked by JLeslie (57067points) May 2nd, 2010

I was just wondering if you, or if you aware if a company you work for, is hesitant to hire minorites (any protected group) because you don’t want to deal with being accused of racism, or agism, or wind up “stuck” with an employee if they underperform. I personally have never hired based on race or age at all, and have never had a problem, but I certainly hear many people, especially people who work for the government, complain about this very thing. So, I was just wondering if having these protections might actually backfire, leaving people less likely to hire a minority in the first place.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

The_Idler's avatar

In the UK, they are more likely to get hired because it’s easier to get rid of them, because they generally work through agency and don’t know their rights.

poofandmook's avatar

If the employer does his job correctly, then it would be just as easy to fire a minority as anyone else. If the employer sees any employee not doing their job to par, it should be documented as thoroughly as possible, so there is no question as to why the person is being fired. Hard, true proof leaves no room for false accusations.

Arisztid's avatar

Please do not lump all minorities into the group protected by the various agencies.

Some of us are not protected in any way and, not only face job discrimination, but the employers know fully well they can fire us for whatever reason, valid or not, with no repercussions. There is also no recourse to the law about being not hired due to our particular minority.

bobloblaw's avatar

I think people that don’t hire minorities b/c they fear a discrimination claim have a fundamental misunderstanding of employment discrimination law under Title 7. The wiki is pretty relevant on this point:

“An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.”

Just anecdotally, most EEOC complaints are thrown out w/the EEOC taking no action. Private suits may happen, but those are both difficult and expensive for a private citizen to maintain, particularly against a company large enough to have 15 or more employees. It’s just really hard to make a frivolous employment discrimination claim.

Oh, to answer your question directly, no, fear of some distant, future reprisal does not stop me from hiring minorities. If I were to truly worry about Title 7, then I wouldn’t hire any women either. Or anyone religious. Or anyone that wasn’t born in the US. Also, purposefully not hiring groups under Title 7? That would also be a violation of Title 7. I say just hire whoever is qualified and be done with it.

RedPowerLady's avatar

I guess in this circumstance the employer is assuming that a minority is more likely to file a lawsuit (or accuse them of said things) for being fired than a non-minority? That is a flawed and stereotyped assumption.

JLeslie's avatar

@Arisztid I may have worded incorrectly, I meant protected groups, and I know not all minorities are protected. I consider myself a religious minority, but the government would not see me as a minority. At my university an Asian person faught to be able to be treated as a minority to get into the Engineering school, they did not acknowledge Asians as minorities, so I understand your frustration. But, for the purposes of the question it would be people who fall under eeoc protections.

@poofandmook Even if the company does everything right, theoretically they can be put through a hassle, at minimum an accusation. From what I understand discrimination suits are actually almost never won by the employee in end, which seems to be confirmed by one of the answers above.

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Yeah I don’t think they’re allowed to do that.

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

As a person who guides my behaviour my my own internalized set of values, I would hire someone on the basis of their demonstrable skills and work ethic. I would dismiss someone who fails to consistently perform at a suitable level or who fails to live up to the expectations I have of any worker: namely, honesty, diligence, respect for supervisors and cooperation with coworkers. The age, sex, race or nationality or citizenship status would be of no importance to be as an employer at the point of hiring or firing.

mattbrowne's avatar

I’m in IT. And I often hire minorities because in most cases they outperform others. To find their way up they really have to be very, very, very good to prove that they are very good.

Pandora's avatar

In most states across the US if you don’t belong to a union you can be fired at any time for any reason or even no reason at all. Its hard to prove bias. All the burden of proof is on you and not the employer. An employer can fire you because he or she doesn’t get a long with you. You would have to prove that it is common practice for them to fire mostly people of your race with excellent work habits and keep all non ethnics employeed regardless of their work ethics. I don’t think this is something companies worry about. Again, unless you are union.

Arisztid's avatar

@JLeslie Oh ok. I know the comment is late… I just got notification today.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther