Sometimes employers create requirements for jobs that have the best intentions,

Question

Sometimes employers create requirements for jobs that have the best intentions, but yet still end up creating an environment for adverse impact. One example is the NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue . Here the employer initiated a residency requirement for applicants. They defended it as a business necessity because they believed that people who lived in the area would provide faster response times, be more familiar with the geography, and have a better chance of speaking Spanish. The appeals court ultimately struck down this residency requirement as creating an adverse impact. If you were in charge of HR for this organization, what neutral requirements would you suggest that would meet the needs of fast response times, familiarity with the area, and recruiting more Spanish speakers - without creating adverse impact?

Explanation / Answer

Instead of putting as a case over here where they are citing the reason of hiring Spanish worker I would present the case in a manner that won't look this adverse nor harm the sentiment. I'll enact he following points.

1. The organization has a good mix of Spanish and non spanish, so there is no discrimination here.

2. Need people who know the locality and language (They may be Spanish or non-Spanish).

3. The business necessity is local residents. I'll pitch the employment vacancy in the locality itself, and get my selection from there.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.