Here come the quotas..

[Immanuel]

what i am speaking about with immie, is companies that have gvt contracts, where there are plenty of qualified women and minorities with qualified workers ready, willing and able to fill these positions....

I do believe if it is the tax payer's money giving the company their profit and business, then there should be an equal opportunity for ALL citizens of all gender and race, to benefit from it.

There in lies your problem.

When you start giving a benefit to the minority simply because he/she is a minority, you unbalance the "equal opportunity".

Immie

if a company DOES THAT then they are not hiring the equally qualified person...they are hiring the lesser, and there is no law that forces any company to do such....you are making this up.....it is what you imagine.

No, I am not making it up. That is exactly what happens regardless of what the government wants you to believe. Business have to have a proportionately representative staff and if they don't they risk losing contracts. Therefore, they hire less qualified individuals at times in order to maintain proportionality.

Immire

 

[Foxfyre]

Good discussion. But back to my point about letting people go. If advantages are given on the front end, why must race be an issue on the back end? Obviously a manager who hires a minority is not prejudiced, so why is the race card even entertained when someone screws up? And it does happen...

Here is a tale of two (former) friends: Black guy and white guy are best buds since high school. They work together; and party together. Random drug testing at work and both get busted. They get sent to drug classes which they attend together. Year later - uh oh. Snagged again. White guy gets fired; black guy keeps his job. Needless to say they are not best buds anymore. 20 year friendship and mutual respect flushed away by some cowardly manager. This kind of shit goes on all the time.

There is some of that too, and it is just as wrong as not hiring somebody because he or she is a person of color or female or whatever.

But I have long deplored lowering of overall standards so that more people could qualify rather than encouraging more people to achieve standards of excellence. I think that dumbs down all of us.

I think it is criminal to use the color of a person's skin--white, black, red, Asian, whatever--to determine qualifications more than what a person has accomplished, achieved, earned, or merited.

I don't want to be hired because I am a woman. I want to be hired because I can do the job better than anybody else competing for it.

When we narrow it down to quotas, we make a mockery of Martin Luther King's criteria for a non-racist society which is to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

When we continue to run the risk of lawsuits in who we hire or who we fire simply because of the color of a person's skin, his dream will never be realized because we will never be allowed to have a colorblind system.

 

[Immanuel]

what i am speaking about with immie, is companies that have gvt contracts, where there are plenty of qualified women and minorities with qualified workers ready, willing and able to fill these positions....

I do believe if it is the tax payer's money giving the company their profit and business, then there should be an equal opportunity for ALL citizens of all gender and race, to benefit from it.

You can't provide equal opportunity if you use quotas. It's impossible, because you are stacking the deck and pre-determining who will be hired.

I don't agree with quotas either allie....but i don't think the door should be slammed on qualified minorities or qualified women, just because the owner taking our tax payer's money doesn't like them.

Which is liberal speak for: quotas.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

Care, why on earth do you think if we don't use quotas, doors will be slammed? It is still illegal to discriminate, after all.

I've had doors slammed in my face because I'm not Indian. I've had doors slammed in my face because someone didn't like someone in my family. Quotas aren't going to stop that from happening. All they do is make sure that it WILL happen, and it will be legal when it does.

 

[chanel]

Good discussion. But back to my point about letting people go. If advantages are given on the front end, why must race be an issue on the back end? Obviously a manager who hires a minority is not prejudiced, so why is the race card even entertained when someone screws up? And it does happen...

Here is a tale of two (former) friends: Black guy and white guy are best buds since high school. They work together; and party together. Random drug testing at work and both get busted. They get sent to drug classes which they attend together. Year later - uh oh. Snagged again. White guy gets fired; black guy keeps his job. Needless to say they are not best buds anymore. 20 year friendship and mutual respect flushed away by some cowardly manager. This kind of shit goes on all the time.

There is some of that too, and it is just as wrong as not hiring somebody because he or she is a person of color or female or whatever.

But I have long deplored lowering of overall standards so that more people could qualify rather than encouraging more people to achieve standards of excellence. I think that dumbs down all of us.

I think it is criminal to use the color of a person's skin--white, black, red, Asian, whatever--to determine qualifications more than what a person has accomplished, achieved, earned, or merited.

I don't want to be hired because I am a woman. I want to be hired because I can do the job better than anybody else competing for it.

When we narrow it down to quotas, we make a mockery of Martin Luther King's criteria for a non-racist society which is to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

When we continue to run the risk of lawsuits in who we hire or who we fire simply because of the color of a person's skin, his dream will never be realized because we will never be allowed to have a colorblind system.

I agree. And I take his sentiments to heart. (And your posts are beautifully written by the way.) However, foxfyre, while most good people are color blind, the reality is that racism is alive and well amongst all ethnic groups. That's why I get so angry when people like ravi and truth play the race card for every non-racial issue. It diminishes the REAL fact that many people still suffer REAL DISCRIMINATION from racist attitudes. Getting offended by a bad word or dumb joke or mentioning an ethnic group does not fit that and makes their arguments so lame.

I read somewhere that college educated blacks make more than their white counterparts. (uh oh here come the link police ).

I do not believe in lowering standards. But I do believe in a "hand up" for those who are qualified.

 

[Big Fitz]

But is it possible that it is not discrimination but other reasons that this is the case. Our church, for instance, is one of the most open, accepting, and inviting places anybody coud ask for, and we do have many members of color going there. But most black people who live in our area don't go there but rather drive far greater distances to attend the 'black' church of their choice.

While basketball, football, and boxing are heavily populated with people of color, the people of color participating in golf, tennis, soccer, swimming are fairly rare. That isn't a matter of discrimination either in either case.

I also have been in the position of interviewing, hiring and firing, a fairly sizable staff. And especailly in the days when Affirmative Action was really being pushed, and despite the fact that we were an agency with a slogan of "Eliminate racism whereever it exists and by any means necessary", trying to find qualified minorities for some of those positions was impossible even actively recruiting and giving preference to minorities.

And sometimes there was a plethora of qualified minorities to hire.

Sometimes it is just the luck of the draw.

Things aren't always what they seem.

what i am speaking about with immie, is companies that have gvt contracts, where there are plenty of qualified women and minorities with qualified workers ready, willing and able to fill these positions....

I do believe if it is the tax payer's money giving the company their profit and business, then there should be an equal opportunity for ALL citizens of all gender and race, to benefit from it.

There in lies your problem.

When you start giving a benefit to the minority simply because he/she is a minority, you unbalance the "equal opportunity".

Immie

It's called racism through condescension. It operates under the assumption that minorities are incapable of competing on the same level as whites and therefore must be given 'help' or 'assistance'. They will never be as good, so the odds must be tipped in their favor, or better performing whites, if a quota system exists, must be excluded because the color of someone's skin matters more than their merit as a person and capability of performing the task.

Apply this to the NBA for instance, where suddenly you would have to have a reflection of the racial makeup of the US. Blacks would be discriminated against, despite their talent, because you would need at least 70% white players. The remaining 30% would be given to Hispanics next as the next largest minority, then blacks, then Asians, then at least token representatives from all other remaining minorities from Native Americans to Jews. Would this make for better basketball? It sure would be ethnically diverse and 'equal by proportion'.

Would all the players deserve to be there? Dear GOD no! Imagine, LeBron James refused the ability to play professional basketball because he was black and there was a need for a different minority or white.

This is the soft kind of racism that is currently de rigeur among the white left. They as the source of salvation versus the poor downtrodden minorities who could not have made it without their help.

Leaves a real bad taste in your mouth... doesn't it?

 

[Care4all]

Care, why on earth do you think if we don't use quotas, doors will be slammed? It is still illegal to discriminate, after all.

I've had doors slammed in my face because I'm not Indian. I've had doors slammed in my face because someone didn't like someone in my family. Quotas aren't going to stop that from happening. All they do is make sure that it WILL happen, and it will be legal when it does.

I DO NOT agree with specified quotas....that's what I SAID and i stick by it!

my stance is similar to Chanel's.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can't provide equal opportunity if you use quotas. It's impossible, because you are stacking the deck and pre-determining who will be hired.

I don't agree with quotas either allie....but i don't think the door should be slammed on qualified minorities or qualified women, just because the owner taking our tax payer's money doesn't like them.

Which is liberal speak for: quotas.

Immie

I don't see it that way Immie. I do see it as an impression that minorities or women are still being shut out because they are minorities or women.

I don't think there is any one of us who think people should be discriminated against or denied anything JUST because they are minorities or women. I don't think there is any one of us who would approve of that, defend it, justify it, or would not be offended by it.

The only difference between my point of view and Care's is that I don't think it is all that prevalent anymore, and to continue aggressive Affirmative Action just because a few incidents of injustice still ocurr is to do a great disservice to those who are finally being hired because of qualifications, experience, and merit. They should be secure that they are recognized for their ability and competence and not because the boss HAD to hire them because of some quota.

There are ample laws on the books to go after people who do discriminate out of prejudice or bigotry.

I personally think people are discriminated more now because they are overweight or because of the way they dress or because of their manner of speech or because of lack of instruction in how to deport themselvess in an interview. I for instance most recently was interviewing people to do premium audits. I was not going to hire the tattooed chick with piercings wearing the leather mini skirt, fishnet stockings, a too tight top, and who flounced into the chair chewing gum and saying 'yeah' and 'cool' a lot. I swear she showed up for the intereview though. Was even on time. She might even have been fully qualified. Her resume looked pretty good, but I never checked her references.

And because I did hire the well dressed, well spoken young man who came in with a well prepared resume and references the next day, that young woman probably still thinks she wasn't hired because she was a woman. (That year I hired four female auditors and one guy.)

 

[Immanuel]

I don't agree with quotas either allie....but i don't think the door should be slammed on qualified minorities or qualified women, just because the owner taking our tax payer's money doesn't like them.

Which is liberal speak for: quotas.

Immie

I don't see it that way Immie. I do see it as an impression that minorities or women are still being shut out because they are minorities or women.

I don't think there is any one of us who think people should be discriminated against or denied anything JUST because they are minorities or women. I don't think there is any one of us who would approve of that, defend it, justify it, or would not be offended by it.

The only difference between my point of view and Care's is that I don't think it is all that prevalent anymore, and to continue aggressive Affirmative Action just because a few incidents of injustice still ocurr is to do a great disservice to those who are finally being hired because of qualifications, experience, and merit. They should be secure that they are recognized for their ability and competence and not because the boss HAD to hire them because of some quota.

There are ample laws on the books to go after people who do discriminate out of prejudice or bigotry.

I personally think people are discriminated more now because they are overweight or because of the way they dress or because of their manner of speech or because of lack of instruction in how to deport themselvess in an interview. I for instance most recently was interviewing people to do premium audits. I was not going to hire the tattooed chick with piercings wearing the leather mini skirt, fishnet stockings, a too tight top, and who flounced into the chair chewing gum and saying 'yeah' and 'cool' a lot. I swear she showed up for the intereview though. Was even on time. She might even have been fully qualified. Her resume looked pretty good, but I never checked her references.

And because I did hire the well dressed, well spoken young man who came in with a well prepared resume and references the next day, that young woman probably still thinks she wasn't hired because she was a woman. (That year I hired four female auditors and one guy.)

First, I was teasing Care.

But, since she didn't comment on it, she probably got mad at me... again

Secondly, her points have been about quotas. She herself does not promote quotas and will deny it until she is blue in the face, but the truth is that under the government's policy of disqualification from contracts if you don't meet their standards, it leads exactly to quotas. Business owners know what the rules are and they know how much non-compliance costs them. Therefore, despite the government's lies that the law does not insist on quotas, it does in fact, require quotas.

I do not believe Care would hire dishonestly. It is not in her nature, but the sad truth of the matter is that when the government insists on contractors having certain employment guidelines in order to do business with the government, they institute hiring quotas and in my very humble opinion that is flat out wrong.

Immie

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't agree with quotas either allie....but i don't think the door should be slammed on qualified minorities or qualified women, just because the owner taking our tax payer's money doesn't like them.

Which is liberal speak for: quotas.

Immie

I don't see it that way Immie. I do see it as an impression that minorities or women are still being shut out because they are minorities or women.

I don't think there is any one of us who think people should be discriminated against or denied anything JUST because they are minorities or women. I don't think there is any one of us who would approve of that, defend it, justify it, or would not be offended by it.

The only difference between my point of view and Care's is that I don't think it is all that prevalent anymore, and to continue aggressive Affirmative Action just because a few incidents of injustice still ocurr is to do a great disservice to those who are finally being hired because of qualifications, experience, and merit. They should be secure that they are recognized for their ability and competence and not because the boss HAD to hire them because of some quota.

There are ample laws on the books to go after people who do discriminate out of prejudice or bigotry.
I personally think people are discriminated more now because they are overweight or because of the way they dress or because of their manner of speech or because of lack of instruction in how to deport themselvess in an interview. I for instance most recently was interviewing people to do premium audits. I was not going to hire the tattooed chick with piercings wearing the leather mini skirt, fishnet stockings, a too tight top, and who flounced into the chair chewing gum and saying 'yeah' and 'cool' a lot. I swear she showed up for the intereview though. Was even on time. She might even have been fully qualified. Her resume looked pretty good, but I never checked her references.

And because I did hire the well dressed, well spoken young man who came in with a well prepared resume and references the next day, that young woman probably still thinks she wasn't hired because she was a woman. (That year I hired four female auditors and one guy.)

And the bolded part is the crux of the issue. It is illegal to not hire people because of their race or sex and those laws are enforced. The ridiculous notion that ratios are needed today ON TOP OF THAT is racist in itself and does nothing to help promote fair and equal hiring processes. You NEED to look at race now. This is no different with government contracts or anything else either. What is right and moral is right and moral weather government or not. As an example, a construction company within our family was targeted because there was an under representation of Asian people within the company. After a costly process it was finally overturned because we could not find ONE applicant for ANY position, Asians are not going for construction jobs that often. Fact is, if there was ONE SINGLE applicant we would have HAD to hire him or suffer huge fines no matter what the qualifications are. Part of the problem is that people may LOOK like they are equally qualified on paper but in truth are not even close. That is what the interview process is for. There is also the fact that ratios only matter when we are talking about an uneven amount of white hires over minorities and the process DOES NOT work in the opposite direction. If that were true then we would have been in deep trouble as the representation of Mexicans was WAY over the statistical ratio. In the end these laws are only advancing racism and creating artificial quotas. That is the effect no matter the intent of the law itself.

 

[Care4all]

Which is liberal speak for: quotas.

Immie

I don't see it that way Immie. I do see it as an impression that minorities or women are still being shut out because they are minorities or women.

I don't think there is any one of us who think people should be discriminated against or denied anything JUST because they are minorities or women. I don't think there is any one of us who would approve of that, defend it, justify it, or would not be offended by it.

The only difference between my point of view and Care's is that I don't think it is all that prevalent anymore, and to continue aggressive Affirmative Action just because a few incidents of injustice still ocurr is to do a great disservice to those who are finally being hired because of qualifications, experience, and merit. They should be secure that they are recognized for their ability and competence and not because the boss HAD to hire them because of some quota.

There are ample laws on the books to go after people who do discriminate out of prejudice or bigotry.
I personally think people are discriminated more now because they are overweight or because of the way they dress or because of their manner of speech or because of lack of instruction in how to deport themselvess in an interview. I for instance most recently was interviewing people to do premium audits. I was not going to hire the tattooed chick with piercings wearing the leather mini skirt, fishnet stockings, a too tight top, and who flounced into the chair chewing gum and saying 'yeah' and 'cool' a lot. I swear she showed up for the intereview though. Was even on time. She might even have been fully qualified. Her resume looked pretty good, but I never checked her references.

And because I did hire the well dressed, well spoken young man who came in with a well prepared resume and references the next day, that young woman probably still thinks she wasn't hired because she was a woman. (That year I hired four female auditors and one guy.)

And the bolded part is the crux of the issue. It is illegal to not hire people because of their race or sex and those laws are enforced. The ridiculous notion that ratios are needed today ON TOP OF THAT is racist in itself and does nothing to help promote fair and equal hiring processes. You NEED to look at race now. This is no different with government contracts or anything else either. What is right and moral is right and moral weather government or not. As an example, a construction company within our family was targeted because there was an under representation of Asian people within the company. After a costly process it was finally overturned because we could not find ONE applicant for ANY position, Asians are not going for construction jobs that often. Fact is, if there was ONE SINGLE applicant we would have HAD to hire him or suffer huge fines no matter what the qualifications are. Part of the problem is that people may LOOK like they are equally qualified on paper but in truth are not even close. That is what the interview process is for. There is also the fact that ratios only matter when we are talking about an uneven amount of white hires over minorities and the process DOES NOT work in the opposite direction. If that were true then we would have been in deep trouble as the representation of Mexicans was WAY over the statistical ratio. In the end these laws are only advancing racism and creating artificial quotas. That is the effect no matter the intent of the law itself.

It is illegal to not hire people because of their race or sex and those laws are enforced.

How are ''those laws ....enforced''?

 

[Charles_Main]

i think the op writer of the article should have given support for her contentions of what she thinks is in this bill....

Also, I don't think hiring a woman MEANS they are less qualified than a man.... as all of you above seem to be mouthing off...

Yeah cause why would you just go read the section 342 which she clearly references.

My god people there is this thing called the internet. Use it man, Look it up and read.

 

[Care4all]

i think the op writer of the article should have given support for her contentions of what she thinks is in this bill....

Also, I don't think hiring a woman MEANS they are less qualified than a man.... as all of you above seem to be mouthing off...

Yeah cause why would you just go read the section 342 which she clearly references.

My god people there is this thing called the internet. Use it man, Look it up and read.

sorry charlie, beg to differ with you....it should have been a part of the op.

 

[AllieBaba]

If something is referenced, it's understood that anyone who wants to argue it will actually look at it.

Not make the person who references it provide it in it's entirety because the person reading the post is too lazy to actually look at it before replying.

 

[Flopper]

Has anyone seen the House bill? I saw the senate bill but could not find the provision in the bill. I tend to be a bit sceptically till I actually see the bill.

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_f...YO10306_xmlFinancialReformLegislationBill.pdf

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see it that way Immie. I do see it as an impression that minorities or women are still being shut out because they are minorities or women.

I don't think there is any one of us who think people should be discriminated against or denied anything JUST because they are minorities or women. I don't think there is any one of us who would approve of that, defend it, justify it, or would not be offended by it.

The only difference between my point of view and Care's is that I don't think it is all that prevalent anymore, and to continue aggressive Affirmative Action just because a few incidents of injustice still ocurr is to do a great disservice to those who are finally being hired because of qualifications, experience, and merit. They should be secure that they are recognized for their ability and competence and not because the boss HAD to hire them because of some quota.

There are ample laws on the books to go after people who do discriminate out of prejudice or bigotry.
I personally think people are discriminated more now because they are overweight or because of the way they dress or because of their manner of speech or because of lack of instruction in how to deport themselvess in an interview. I for instance most recently was interviewing people to do premium audits. I was not going to hire the tattooed chick with piercings wearing the leather mini skirt, fishnet stockings, a too tight top, and who flounced into the chair chewing gum and saying 'yeah' and 'cool' a lot. I swear she showed up for the intereview though. Was even on time. She might even have been fully qualified. Her resume looked pretty good, but I never checked her references.

And because I did hire the well dressed, well spoken young man who came in with a well prepared resume and references the next day, that young woman probably still thinks she wasn't hired because she was a woman. (That year I hired four female auditors and one guy.)

And the bolded part is the crux of the issue. It is illegal to not hire people because of their race or sex and those laws are enforced. The ridiculous notion that ratios are needed today ON TOP OF THAT is racist in itself and does nothing to help promote fair and equal hiring processes. You NEED to look at race now. This is no different with government contracts or anything else either. What is right and moral is right and moral weather government or not. As an example, a construction company within our family was targeted because there was an under representation of Asian people within the company. After a costly process it was finally overturned because we could not find ONE applicant for ANY position, Asians are not going for construction jobs that often. Fact is, if there was ONE SINGLE applicant we would have HAD to hire him or suffer huge fines no matter what the qualifications are. Part of the problem is that people may LOOK like they are equally qualified on paper but in truth are not even close. That is what the interview process is for. There is also the fact that ratios only matter when we are talking about an uneven amount of white hires over minorities and the process DOES NOT work in the opposite direction. If that were true then we would have been in deep trouble as the representation of Mexicans was WAY over the statistical ratio. In the end these laws are only advancing racism and creating artificial quotas. That is the effect no matter the intent of the law itself.

It is illegal to not hire people because of their race or sex and those laws are enforced.

How are ''those laws ....enforced''?

They are enforced diligently and pretty much without exception and often whether there is any merit to a complaint or not. In the example I previously gave, had that tattooed bedangled and spangled lady filed a complaint that she was not hired because she was female and claimed she was more qualified than the guy I did hire, the authorities would have to look into it. And I very well might have to defend myself even to the point of going to court. If I win in such a case, I'm out my time, court costs, and legal fees. If she wins, she gets all that PLUS whatever the court awards her in lost wages and benefits PLUS I might still be ordered to hire her.

In that case she clearly was not suitable for the job and she did not contest it.


In a reverse discrimination case, the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano showed another side to this issue. In that case the City of New Haven gave promotion tests to all employees who wanted to apply for promotion. Only one black and two Hispanic firemen passed the test, and the three minorities did not score higher than others and would not be promoted. The city threw out the results rather than face a civil rights complaint that two few minorities qualified and therefore the test was unfair and they would just not promote anybody.

The white firefighters who had passed the test and deserved promotion sued. Our new Justice Sotomayor was the judge to hear the case and sided with the City. The Supreme Court overturned her decision and sided with the firefighters who had earned promotion. The Court determined that the test was reasonable, fair, and non discriminatory against any group and the City could not throw out the results just because minorities didn't qualify for promotion.

But that did illustrate just how ridiculous and to what lengths employers are going to to avoid those kinds of problems.

 

[Care4all]

If something is referenced, it's understood that anyone who wants to argue it will actually look at it.

Not make the person who references it provide it in it's entirety because the person reading the post is too lazy to actually look at it before replying.

I can't find it allie....and I am on my third google search....if she had mentioned the name of the bill and which version then maybe it would be easier to find....? I have no idea how to get to the bill she is referencing or the section 342....SHE SHOULD HAVE linked it....imho, unless she really didn't want any of us to easily find it?

 

[AllieBaba]

True enough.

 

[Foxfyre]

If something is referenced, it's understood that anyone who wants to argue it will actually look at it.

Not make the person who references it provide it in it's entirety because the person reading the post is too lazy to actually look at it before replying.

I can't find it allie....and I am on my third google search....if she had mentioned the name of the bill and which version then maybe it would be easier to find....? I have no idea how to get to the bill she is referencing or the section 342....SHE SHOULD HAVE linked it....imho, unless she really didn't want any of us to easily find it?

Very few of the media sources are giving the bill number because I think very few want us to read this bill. If we don't read it they can describe it any way they want.

But the Bill is H.R. 4173. You can find the government summary and I believe the full context of the original bill and House/Senate comparison here:
House Financial Services Committee

 

[Care4all]

And the bolded part is the crux of the issue. It is illegal to not hire people because of their race or sex and those laws are enforced. The ridiculous notion that ratios are needed today ON TOP OF THAT is racist in itself and does nothing to help promote fair and equal hiring processes. You NEED to look at race now. This is no different with government contracts or anything else either. What is right and moral is right and moral weather government or not. As an example, a construction company within our family was targeted because there was an under representation of Asian people within the company. After a costly process it was finally overturned because we could not find ONE applicant for ANY position, Asians are not going for construction jobs that often. Fact is, if there was ONE SINGLE applicant we would have HAD to hire him or suffer huge fines no matter what the qualifications are. Part of the problem is that people may LOOK like they are equally qualified on paper but in truth are not even close. That is what the interview process is for. There is also the fact that ratios only matter when we are talking about an uneven amount of white hires over minorities and the process DOES NOT work in the opposite direction. If that were true then we would have been in deep trouble as the representation of Mexicans was WAY over the statistical ratio. In the end these laws are only advancing racism and creating artificial quotas. That is the effect no matter the intent of the law itself.

It is illegal to not hire people because of their race or sex and those laws are enforced.

How are ''those laws ....enforced''?

They are enforced diligently and pretty much without exception and often whether there is any merit to a complaint or not. In the example I previously gave, had that tattooed bedangled and spangled lady filed a complaint that she was not hired because she was female and claimed she was more qualified than the guy I did hire, the authorities would have to look into it. And I very well might have to defend myself even to the point of going to court. If I win in such a case, I'm out my time, court costs, and legal fees. If she wins, she gets all that PLUS whatever the court awards her in lost wages and benefits PLUS I might still be ordered to hire her.

In that case she clearly was not suitable for the job and she did not contest it.


In a reverse discrimination case, the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano showed another side to this issue. In that case the City of New Haven gave promotion tests to all employees who wanted to apply for promotion. Only one black and two Hispanic firemen passed the test, and the three minorities did not score higher than others and would not be promoted. The city threw out the results rather than face a civil rights complaint that two few minorities qualified and therefore the test was unfair and they would just not promote anybody.

The white firefighters who had passed the test and deserved promotion sued. Our new Justice Sotomayor was the judge to hear the case and sided with the City. The Supreme Court overturned her decision and sided with the firefighters who had earned promotion. The Court determined that the test was reasonable, fair, and non discriminatory against any group and the City could not throw out the results just because minorities didn't qualify for promotion.

But that did illustrate just how ridiculous and to what lengths employers are going to to avoid those kinds of problems.

so, it is enforced if the person applying for the job, if she files a complaint and can prove that she is more qualified than the other person they hired? who pays the lawyers involved? the person applying for the job? and how does she know what the qualifications of the stranger they hired instead of her?

i don't call THAT enforcement fox....