Discussion Board #3 HR dilemma:

Assume you are the HR Manager of a medium sized company. You have an exempt open
position to fill and have received several applications/resumes. This department has taken a lot of
your time because they don't get along very well, but yet there has been very little turnover in it.
Lots of the applicants look good on paper and you call several in for interviews. After all the
interviewing is done, you find yourself with only 4 applicants that meet all the qualifications
required for the job and strangely enough they all scored the same on your pre-employment test.
Without asking for more information or more interviews than what is presented here, what
should you, the HR Manager do? Who do you hire? Defend your decision for each person why
you chose to hire or not to hire. Don't break any laws.

My choice is to hire applicant # 1 because of the statement that he “interviewed great” and
this seemed to set him apart and above the other applicants.

All applicants are eligible for hire based on my research on the legal parameters for hiring
the applicants below. In certain situations, the rationale for not hiring any one of these
applicants may be a legal issue. I have outlined the laws, scenarios, and rationale for each
applicant below.

1) A minority person interviewed great but you think his religion could create a major
problem

Not hiring this person for the reasons listed in the scenario (minority and religion) would be a
violation of current EEO laws. The opinion regarding his religion and my imagining a major
problem cannot be factors that are included in my decision to hire or not hire. This is backed up
by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against
any individual with respect to hiring, compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of
employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This individual, if not hired
and aware of the reason he wasn’t hired, could also contact the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) and file a suit under this same law and expose the company to legal issues.

Additionally, in this scenario, if it’s “me” thinking his religion could create a major problem.
That leads me to one of two conclusions about myself (I need a new career outside of HR) and/or
about the persons he would be working with are lacking in support/training and education
regarding diversity. It’s time for diversity training.

In today’s job market much of what is happening is on a scale that is larger than our local
experiences, exposures, and level of familiarity or “comfort zones”. Work is frequently being
conducted on a global scale. By default, this exposes individuals to persons of varied groups like
the ones listed in the Civil Right Act above. Training should address the global acceptance of
diversity (e.g. disability, ethnicity, gender, language, race, religion, sexual orientation); mindful
communication; religious influences and accommodation (Dessler, p. 625) including an
emphasis on being aware of the pitfall of unconscious biases.

2) A handicapped person that will need some accommodation to do the job, but not
something that would create a financial hardship for the company.

This individual is qualified for the job, not hiring this person without other justifications could be
legally difficult to defend. Given the facts in front of me, “not something that would create a
financial hardship for the company”, is the key factor in hiring. The Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against qualified disables individuals.
It also states that employers must make “reasonable accommodations” for physical or mental
limitations unless doing so imposes an “undue hardship” on the business (Dessler, p. 35). Given
the candidate is qualified to do the job and has the requisite skills, education, and experience to
do the job, this would be a definite hire.

In addition to these facts, there are instances in which hiring a person(s) with a disability has
financial benefits for the hiring company. There are three specific tax incentives that may apply:
Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC); Disabled Access Credit; Barrier Removal Tax
Deduction; Special Employer Incentives for Hiring Service-Disabled Veterans (Employer
Assistance and Resource Network on Disability Inclusion, 2019).

3) A 66-year old female that you're sure would fit right in with half of the ladies in the
department

The narrative statement that this department “has taken a lot your time because they don’t get
along very well…” would lead me to not hire this person based on the fact that I need a person
who I strongly believe will get along with the entire department. While she would be a good fit
for “half” the ladies in the department this also means, conversely, that she would “not” be a
good fit for the other “half”. Based on the fact that she is qualified for the job and meets the
needs of the job description she otherwise would be a good hire.

Her age and being female has nothing to do with my decision to not hire. And that type of
decision would violate current laws. One cannot make assumptions about a person who is 66
years of age (e.g. avoid stereotyping her as a hard worker with a strong work ethic or to assume
that she would need to work at a different pace than others or need additional training to catch up
on technology). These are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Dessler, p. 592 and Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act.

The current outlook for the labor force has as its largest segment those from 45 to 64 years old. A
survey by AARP and SHRM concluded that older workers tend to have lower absenteeism rates,
were more reliable and has better work habits than younger employees (Dessler, p. 152-153).
Flexibility in work style, shift length, and concepts like “phased retirement” are highly popular in
some companies who support hiring large numbers of older persons.

4) Your boss's 25-year-old nephew and your boss is pressing you to hire the nephew

After researching laws regarding nepotism I discovered that most laws apply only to federal or
state workers. There are federal laws in place for persons working for the federal government
against hiring family members (5 U.S.C. § 3110 “generally prohibits a federal official, including
a Member of Congress from appointing, promoting, or recommending for appointment or
promotion any “relative of the official to any agency or department over which the authority or
control of the official exercise.” (ethics.house.gov, 2019). State laws vary. In Kansas, the law is
similarly applied and is only directed toward state officers or employees.

In terms of privately held, operated and owned companies nepotism may be a part of the
workplace culture (e.g. a made up “mom and pop” company like Bob and Son’s Roofing). If this
is the case, nepotism may be expected. If nepotism is something new or not previously “known”
by the employees it could be a contributing factor in lower morale, employee attrition, a defeatist
attitude of no optimism for promotion, etc.

References

Employer assistance and resource network on disability inclusion: Advancing workforce

diversity, 2019. Retrieved June 6, 2019. http://www.askearn.org/topics/laws
regulations/employer_financial_incentives/

Dessler, G. Human resource management (15th edition), 2017. ISBN 978-0-13-423545-5