4 ms·

Yes, you need to be proactive for legal reasons. Legal precedent in the U.S. concerning equal employment opportunity is based on "disparate impact" of hiring p

Yes, you need to be proactive for legal reasons. Legal precedent in the U.S. concerning equal employment opportunity is based on "disparate impact" of hiring practices. That means that you can still be held liable for discrimination if the effect of your hiring practices results in discrimination even if you did not intend to discriminate. Companies claiming that affirmative action is not important are really just waiting to be sued for discrimination. Affirmative action is not just about race. It's about religion, sex, age, and sexual orientation. Good recruiting practices can eliminate bad job candidates prior to hiring. You can also always let go any employees based on poor performance. However, employers must still be proactive in hiring members of legally protected classes. Yes, my college degree is in business management.

PakG1 16y ago
While that's true, it doesn't mean it's a good solution. I was commenting on whether or not the solution was optimal, not whether or not it was able to fulfill legal requirements. If a solution is needed to fulfill legal requirements, but is not optimal, that would speak to something being wrong in the law that needs to be updated. Laws usually exist for good reasons, but they shouldn't defeat the bigger picture. And while I'm no legal expert, my shallow research tells me this is more of an issue in US law, not necessarily laws of other nations. In Canada, we have the requirement to give preference to minorities where qualifications are equal. If qualifications are not equal, the one who is more qualified gets the job. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.