14 ms·

Ask HN: Am I being instructed to do something illegal? (DEI hiring practices)

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• qorrect 5y ago
  Get their insistence in writing ( in an email ) to CYA.
• kerneloftruth 5y ago
  I would hope/think that the company's leader(s) consulted their attorney before instituting an objectively discriminatory practice. You might ask about that -- but if you're not a principal of the company, they don't necessarily have to answer your question (honestly).
  • derwiki 5y ago
    I thought a people manager was an “agent of the company” and was held to more legal liability than an IC. E.g. as an IC if I see discrimination that does not involve me I don’t _need_ to report it. But as an agent of the company I would. Or maybe my HR training course fibbed? /shrug
• anon926310 5y ago
  Typo in the title. If anyone has edit privileges then can they update it to "Ask HN:"
  • josephcsible 5y ago
    This posting looks recent enough that you should still have the edit button yourself.
    • anon926310 5y ago
      Used it once for other typos but then the edit link disappeared!
      • mysterydip 5y ago
        My brain instinctively read "ask hn" anyway so you're probably fine
• msoad 5y ago
  What's your motive here? Are you planning to leave the company if this escalates? I'm asking because if you want to "take them down" you totally can. Capture evidence and involve an employment lawyer. But what is in it for you? The lawyer will get paid handsomely. What about you? I don't think you're particularly damaged by this to ask for damages.
  • ameliaquining 5y ago
    I'm reading OP as wanting to figure out what the consequences to them might be if they go along with this.
  • anon926310 5y ago
    I have thought about leaving. My first goal is to confirm that I really understand what I'm observing. I don't want to resign because of a legal issue only to discover later that it's not actually illegal and I misread the situation. I have no animosity for the company or the leaders. No desire to "take them down" or cause any drama. But avoiding drama definitely wouldn't be a reason to do something illegal imo.
    • toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Not wanting to violate labor law and anti discrimination regulations isn’t “causing drama”. It’s wanting to avoid civil and criminal repercussions, both against the corporation and individuals personally. If you don’t get a satisfactory answer, report them to the US Dept of Labor/EEOC. I’d also recommend reporting them to the labor board in whichever state their headquarters is located (or what they consider their HQ if a remote org). To do nothing is to allow the unfair, abusive practice to continue. And if you do nothing, it will continue after you leave. https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discriminati...
      • drdeca 5y ago
        I think they are just saying that they don’t have a positive motivation to “cause drama” and don’t have any vendetta against anyone which would motivate them to act against the company, but at the same time, that they don’t see “avoiding drama” as a reason enough to do an illegal thing asked of them. I’m not sure quite what you mean when you say it «isn’t “causing drama”». It seems to me like some actions taken out of a desire to avoid violating labor law and anti-discrimination regulations, could result in people being upset with people, etc. which could be called “drama”. If you interpret “causing drama” as meaning, acting with a motivation of causing drama, then yes, as you say, acting with a motivation of avoiding violating [stuff] is not acting with a motivation of causing drama. (I have no comment on what they should do; I imagine you are likely correct on that front, idk.)
• devoutsalsa 5y ago
  IANAL, but I did work as a recruiter. This sounds illegal from what I know about hiring. Diversity good. Discrimination bad (and stupid).
• lokar 5y ago
  A quick web search finds some answers. eg https://www.spigglelaw.com/employment-blog/employers-affirmative-action-boost-diversity/ https://www.spigglelaw.com/employment-blog/employers-affirma... """ Title VII prohibits employers from making employment decisions because of an individual’s skin color, national origin, sex, religion, or race. Therefore, it is illegal to give an applicant an advantage solely because of the applicant’s race. However, this is not always the case. Under United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, an employer may voluntarily implement its own affirmative action plan. However, this is permissible only if the purpose is to remediate past failures to hire minority employees in areas that contain few minorities. Under Executive Order 11246, certain government contractors must have affirmative action policies to identify instances where they are not hiring qualified minorities. Contractors can take steps to fix any such hiring discrepancies. Despite these two major exceptions, employers may not use affirmative action to hire more minority employees solely to increase the diversity of their workforce. As a result, the Fisher case only applies to schools, not employers. """ So, uh, it depends.
  • Hamuko 5y ago
    >However, this is permissible only if the purpose is to remediate past failures to hire minority employees in areas that contain few minorities. Women are obviously not a minority in the US, but does this apply if they're a minority in a particular field (such as engineering)?
    • Zababa 5y ago
      Minority is often not used in terms of numbers, but in terms of "privilege scale". In that view, women are less privileged than men, and thus get classified as a minority.
    • astura 5y ago
      In this case "minority" refers to the sociological definition, not the mathematical definition.
      • raxxorrax 5y ago
• candiddevmike 5y ago
  • shrimp_emoji 5y ago
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • drdeca 5y ago
      I don’t think that is correct? Like, Aiui (this is from memory and I don’t remember where I read this, so you should take it with a good serving of salt), the term “gender” previously meant simply “type”/“kind”/“sort”, but became a euphemism for specifically the concept which was at that time known as “sex”, in the sense of like, the general typology of people into two major classes, one masculine/“the male sex” and one feminine/“the female sex”. I’m not sure the reason a euphemism was used for this. I’m not sure if it was because of the word “sex” also being used for “sexual intercourse”, or if that came later . Regardless, this use of the word “gender” usurped its previous meaning as meaning “type”, and largely overtook the word “sex” as the common/polite way to say it. As such, at this time, the question/answer pair “What is the patient’s gender?” “The patient is male.” would have been, as I understand it, perfectly normal. I imagine that, over time, with the word “gender” being used more of the time that “sex” would have previously been used to refer to the typology as it was then understood, the term “sex” became more strongly associated with sexual intercourse, and became more uncomfortable to use . (I know that probably like, 8-9 years ago, I felt uncomfortable using it to refer to the general typology. Of course, this is after the change I will describe next.) Now, having this pair of different words that largely were used for the same thing, must have been quite convenient for the social theorists / social architects, who promoted a new* distinction . (* new in the sense of common familiarity etc, not in the sense of “there was previously absolutely no concept at all of [...]”. Of course there has been much historical precedent of a number of concepts of [thing] beyond the usual two. Check out the etymology of the word “bad”. As Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun.) Unsurprisingly, when dividing the one concept into two concepts, they chose to assign the one which they wanted to be considered to be the more important/relevant one, to the word which was more comfortable/less awkward to use. And, being recognized by some as authorities, they managed to get this assignment of this division of a concept into two, assigned in the popular use, to these two distinct words. However, I don’t think that at any point in this story, that “male/female” became uncommon as a name for both versions of the concept? I would understand an attempt to associate male/female exclusively with “sex” in order to attempt to use the common-ness of “male”/“female” to re-orient things to have more of the emphasis on the concept which is now commonly referred to as “sex”, in much the same way that the naming of the two worked to put an emphasis on the concept now known as “gender”, but, I don’t think that the fact of the matter is that many people tend to use “male” and “female” exclusively for “sex”. I suppose there is a faction which tends to (especially in the case of “female”)? But it isn’t the majority. I don’t claim that one shouldn’t attempt to influence how language changes over time to make it more in accordance with one’s preferences. I also have preferences about how language changes over time, and where I can, I try to further those preferences (e.g. I would prefer that people avoid using the word “literally” for emphasis, and I sometimes seek to further this goal by, mentioning it to people when I see them use it contrary to my preferences.) But, as a fact-claim about the common meaning-i.e.-usage of the word “female”, the claim that “female” refers only to a “sex” and not to a “gender”, is (currently! This could change!) incorrect (except within certain circles).
• schwartzworld 5y ago
  IMO the right way to improve DEI outcomes is to reach outside traditional recruitment pools. My last job spent months talking about DEI only to have a similar outcome to yours, just telling HR to hire more women and POC to senior roles. But it doesn't do anything for representation to scramble over the handful of "diverse" senior+ candidates that already exist. Ultimately improving diversity in tech is going to require hiring more people with less experience and training them.
  • lokar 5y ago
    In a real world organization it can be hard to get individual managers and teams to do this. Even when they want to, time pressure often means they just do the easy things. Setting aside even a handful of slots forces the issue, and this can lead to orgs figuring out how to find people.
  • rdtwo 5y ago
    Yeah but managers don’t train and nobody has time or interest to train the lowest preforming candidate just because of their skin color.
  • azth 5y ago
    > IMO the right way to improve DEI outcomes They need to take a step back and ask why equal outcomes is the goal to begin with? They can't seem to fathom that men and women naturally have different interests and inclinations. And if somehow the arbitrary identity groups that they decide on and end up hiring do end up reflecting the underlying society, then what? All problems are solved?
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    That would be discrimination if there are people that have the qualifications and want to apply them. Where is the goal of DIE reached? Is there are limit when "discrimination" is gone? A certain percentage that needs to be reached? I would be completely surprised if that were the case and I believe this will only end in a bureaucratic hell hole.
• ohCh6zos 5y ago
  Even if it isn't illegal it is unethical.
• DangerousPie 5y ago
  Might be worth asking Reddit's r/legaladvice (but take what they say with a grain of salt). In the UK this would be illegal afaik - you are only allowed to favour one sex over the other if there are two equivalent applicants for a position and you are trying to counteract an existing imbalance in your team. But you can't outright reject one sex from the start.
  • anon926310 5y ago
    Done! https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/sayz3d/am_i_being_instructed_to_do_something_illegal_dei/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/sayz3d/am_i_be...
    • crackercrews 5y ago
      Lots of redditors saying go to HR. That is a bad idea. Your company's DEI initiatives probably originated in the HR department. Or they originated higher up, and HR was tapped to implement. Either way HR is not your ally.
  • jokethrowaway 5y ago
    This is incorrect. I hired in the UK and we were legally discriminating based on people being "minority" or women. It sickens me. From Wikipedia: >"Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows an employer to treat an applicant or employee with a protected characteristic (eg race, sex or age) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than someone without that characteristic who is as qualified for the role. The employer must reasonably think that people with the protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage or are under-represented in that particular activity. Taking the positive action must be a proportionate means of enabling or encouraging people to overcome the disadvantage or to take part in the activity."
    • DangerousPie 5y ago
      Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start. I guess the difference is whether you can hire a minority candidate even if they are objectively less qualified for a job? My understanding was that you could only use the characteristics as a tie breaker if two candidates were otherwise the same, but maybe that's wrong.
• 29athrowaway 5y ago
  Contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or file a complaint depending on what your situation is: https://www.eeoc.gov/contact-eeoc https://www.eeoc.gov/contact-eeoc Sex and gender are protected classes, an employer cannot discriminate based on a protected class. The law forbids the company from retaliating against you in any way as a result of an EEOC complaint investigation. If you have signed a waiver or arbitration aggreement, you should take a look at that and talk to a lawyer.
• pesenti 5y ago
  Legality aside, this is a terrible and naive way to think of DEI. Candidates recruited this way will have a stigma attached to them (“they were recruited because they were X”). A better way is to enforce DSA - Diverse Slate Approach - which ensure that you don’t recruit anybody without having considered multiple genders and/or ethnicity before making the offer. The goal of DSA is to recruit the best candidate for the role, but ensure a broad set of candidates has been considered. It’s a win win for all and it works.
  • anaisbetts 5y ago
    Yep, I have to agree. Candidates (rightly!) are upset when they are explicitly considered the "token" hire and avoid these roles - some companies even have the gall to put this in their job listing! The real solution to diverse hiring is to actively recruit from sources that have the kind of people you're looking for. Your (not you parent comment, but the anonymous "you") current candidate sources are probably not very diverse so the end result is that your hiring is mirroring that. Actively recruit and go after diverse candidate sources, and you'll hire diverse candidates.
  • Bostonian 5y ago
    Since time is finite, with DSA you will likely deny interviews on the basis of race and sex, and that is morally and legally wrong too.
  • zdragnar 5y ago
    I have to disagree that this is a win-win. My friend recently went through another round of interviews trying to find a job. He got tons of follow up interviews, only to be told that the company decided to hire internally, or some other excuse that strongly implied they already had another candidate in mind. My friend, it ought not surprise you to discover, fits into several "minority" categories. The worst industry for this was academia, though his last round in the private sector was also tough. Moral of the story: if you find a candidate that you want to hire, just hire them. Don't bring in a bunch of DEI candidates and make them feel like show dogs just so you can tick a checkbox that says you pretended to care about DEI.
• mynegation 5y ago
  If your company is large enough, you should have an HR department and HR person working with you directly as a hiring manager. Reach out to them. Do everything in writing (emails), refuse to get any guidance on the phone. Get approval from them. If you are still unsure - ask to involve company’s legal department. Print the finished email threads, store outside your place of work.
  • ajb 5y ago
    If you are worried that you are being asked to do something illegal, you should get your own legal advice. The companies lawyer is obliged to protect them, not you. Having said that, the above is probably good advice in many situations. Just not if you have an concern that you might personally get sued or prosecuted.
• wonderwonder 5y ago
  Decisions like these from companies just lead to resentment. Engineers start to feel like minority engineers are just diversity hires. In this case they are right which leads to animosity by the established engineers and a feeling of being disliked because of their minority status by the new hire. In most cases the minority engineer does not even know they had an advantage and will likely take a massive confidence hit when they find out. If the new engineer is also not as good an engineer as could have been hired had the hiring pool been larger the animosity will compound, established engineers will feel like they have to work more to compensate for the weak new hire and even though they complain, management will insist that they remain, further inciting negativity. Eventually the older engineers will leave as they feel they are now being unfairly discriminated against themselves. The insane thing is that all parties in this are correct. All of them are being discriminated against, both new and established engineers but its because of the probably well meaning actions of the HR / Diversity department. IMO limiting hiring pools based on race or gender is not a good thing and can only lead to animosity and eventually employee churn.
  • foogazi 5y ago
    > Engineers start to feel like minority engineers are just diversity hires. As an engineer I don’t really care- have I been discriminated against ? maybe, have I been privileged? Absolutely With all the biases that humans have someone is always getting shafted - nothing is always 100% fair
• Volundr 5y ago
  Assuming you have one, it might be worth talking to your HR department to clarify these instructions. Maybe there is something you aren't getting, or this is something setup by clueless management and they are unaware and would want to intervene. Beyond that when in doubt, talk to a lawyer. At first glance to me (I am not a lawyer) this seems like it's probably illegal, but it's entirely possible there are nuances to which I'm not privy both in terms of legality and in terms of what's actually happening. A quick consult with an employment lawyer isn't that expensive and will give you a much better idea on how to proceed than HN ever can. If you don't mind skipping straight to whistle-blowing, you can also talk to your State's department of labor, or the US Department of Labor. They tend to take such things seriously and will no doubt investigate.
  • qbasic_forever 5y ago
    HR only exists to protect the company from liability and lawsuits. Talk to them first at your own risk, and realize that almost no good can come from doing so. At best they will now see you as a 'problem' employee that is asking too many questions, and at worst it could start a chain of actions that lead to your termination or leaving the company (for completely unrelated reasons of course).
    • phreack 5y ago
      While talking to a lawyer is the best option, wouldn't this be one of the few cases where HR is relevant? You're specifically bringing to attention a potential liability/lawsuit from external sources.
      • znpy 5y ago
        > You're specifically bringing to attention a potential liability/lawsuit from external sources. Not unless the author reveal the name of the company, which they didn't (as far as I can see at the time of writing).
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
• NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  This is something I've tried to figure out in detail due to past similar circumstances. What you're being asked to do is almost certainly illegal. There are a couple small carve-outs for very specific situations, but I would bet almost anything your company has not set up the paper trail to make sure they're in those small carve outs. Either way, what they're doing is morally wrong and will lead to worse outcomes for both under-privileged people and everyone else. You have a couple different possible moves here: 1) Bring it up to your company's HR, compliance people, or legal team. If you want to stay and look good, this is an okay move. Frame it as, "This probably exposes us to A LOT of liability, no? Just thought I'd let you know". 2) Report them to the relevant authorities. This is the EEOC at the Department of Labor (Federal) and your state's EEOC or EEOC-equivalent. If you're planning on leaving I would definitely do this. Gather evidence of the illegal activity first and then submit. Many states will have whistleblower protections such that what the company can do to hurt you is very limited. You may even end up getting paid for no work. 3) Develop a list of candidates who were illegally discriminated against and notify them. They can then sue the company themselves. 1, 2, and 3 aren't exclusive. You can do a combination: for instance, let the company know and report them to EEOC. If you have the means and want to do a little good in the world, I think spending a couple hundred dollars on talking to a lawyer for an hour or two is a good move as well.
  • anon926310 5y ago
    Thanks for these ideas. Do you have any recs on where or how to find a lawyer for the advice call?
    • NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
      The usual first stop advice is your local bar association. Tell them what you're looking for and they should be able to provide recommendations. Next-level might be looking up similar cases in the past and talking to the attorneys who worked on them. Of course, if you have any sympathetic lawyer friends you might ask them too! As an aside, thank you for caring and for doing something about this :-)
    • Plasmoid 5y ago
• raincom 5y ago
  It is common in big companies. These days, HR is heavy on hiring women and minorities. No whites, no Indians, etc. Definitely not illegal.
  • kbelder 5y ago
    Well, it's clearly illegal, but you're correct, it's common in big companies. It's kind of mind-boggling that we're in this situation where illegal discrimination in hiring is not only tolerated, but generally encouraged.
• ThePhysicist 5y ago
  I'd file it under affirmative action [1], which is not illegal in most countries/states (on the contrary). Lots of commenters here simply cite single paragraphs from anti-discrimination laws but what they don't understand is that the laws often allow organizations to correct bias by giving preferential treatment to underrepresented groups. The logic behind is that the majority group (e.g. white caucasian young males) might have bias to hire peers that they identify with, hence perpetuating their majority. Quota-based hiring / candidate selection is one way to solve this problem. Different jurisdictions have different rules though, in Germany hiring practice for certain professions (e.g. professorships) is that if two candidates are equally qualified but one is a woman then she will always receive preferential treatment (which is fair IMHO). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_Unit...
  • sydd 5y ago
    I'd file it as a violation of title VII of the civil rights act: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII%E2%80%94equal_employment_opportunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title...
  • xyzzyz 5y ago
    > Quota-based hiring / candidate selection is one way to solve this problem. Quota based hiring is explicitly illegal in the US (Gratz v. Bollinger)
• buro9 5y ago
  Extremely likely you would be breaking the law by discriminating against anyone not female. The way to do this properly is by "Positive Action" (when all else is equal, prefer a candidate that fulfils a diversity criteria)... not to be confused with "Positive Discrimination" (the setting of quotas or in your case excluding a demographic from being considered for the role). You can find an example of this enshrined in UK law https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter... (I know you're in the US, but I find the UK law very easy to find and to read). The spirit of it is simple: Interview everyone equally, give all the opportunity... but if you have to choose between 2 candidates who fare equally through interviewing then you may factor in any disadvantages that arise from their sex, gender, race, background, etc... and in those cases you may now favour that candidate. This process does not exclude people or "lower the bar" for the diverse demographic... it favours only when everything else is equal.
  • wyager 5y ago
    > The way to do this properly is by "Positive Action" (when all else is equal, prefer a candidate that fulfils a diversity criteria)... not to be confused with "Positive Discrimination" (the setting of quotas or in your case excluding a demographic from being considered for the role). The only difference between these two things is perhaps a matter of degree. The net result is that you preferentially hire a group based on sex/race/etc.
  • BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
    I totally agree with this, and this is what I try to do myself. However after being part of dozens of hiring panels I noticed a clear trend toward rating females/minorities hire on technical skills than they would give to a white male with the same performance. After having conversations about it I truly don't think the people noticed what they are doing. Even after pointing it out some would still deny it, and of course it's not possible to prove given that it's highly subjective. It's just a really, really hard thing to see in ourselves. I don't know what the answer is. I'm going to keep striving for the standard you laid out, but it's continually difficult to know how you're doing.
• umvi 5y ago
  A similar thing happened at a previous company I worked for. We had lots of male candidates apply to an opening but only one female candidate. The female candidate was by far the weakest and I strongly advised not hiring her, but I was overridden by higher ups desperate to improve DEI and she was the candidate hired.
  • CodeGlitch 5y ago
    So the company's performance suffers and their competition who don't indulge in DIE will benefit from those male candidates. Sounds like another case of "go woke go broke". This is why we see a lot of progressive policies in academia and government... Where losing money doesn't matter.
  • throwbigdata 5y ago
    How did they do?
• pnathan 5y ago
  My understanding of US labor law is this is flamingly illegal. And you would be well served to talk to a lawyer for yourself before you make any moves.
• mcculley 5y ago
  If your company competes with mine, then I encourage you to select for attributes other than fitness for the job.
• jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Unfortunately discrimination is alive and well in our days and it's called "Affirmative Action". I'm not sure about the USA but in the UK discriminating is acceptable as long as you are discriminating in favour of a category which is under-represented. Of course, given you can split humans in an infinite number of categories, this is basically meaningless and it's just plain discrimination. One of my previous employers in the UK was working primarily with recruiters that brought candidates with the correct gender / race.
• ma_advertising 5y ago
  how do you choose between white female and black male given that both are equally qualified ?
  • bigjimmyjohnson 5y ago
    I just choose the sexier candidate. Better for morale.
  • maccard 5y ago
    I've been a hiring manager for 3 years and have been interviewing candidates for 7. In all that time, I have _never_ had a situation where two candidates were exactly equally qualified. There has always been factors that we can use to choose one over the other. the last time I had to make a recommendation on a candidate decision, both would have been appropriate for the job. I recommended we contact the one we didn't hire for our next opening, and my hire recommendation was because candidate A had marginally more experience than B in an area that our team was weaker on.
  • umvi 5y ago
    If you are DEI conscious company you hire both
• nostromo 5y ago
  It’s shocking to me how much the courts and executive branch have hollowed out the Civil Rights Act. > It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin This is the law of the US. It couldn’t be more clear that your company is breaking the law. And yet it’s been completely neutered by activist judges and well-meaning executives and bureaucrats.
  • giantg2 5y ago
    It's mostly that they simply don't want to prosecute, nor have the resources to fully enforce all the laws. We're supposed to be a nation ruled by laws. We've become a nation ruled by men due to their power to simply ignore the laws when they feel like it.
    • BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
      > It's mostly that they simply don't want to prosecute, Correct > nor have the resources to fully enforce all the laws. I don't think so. They have all the resources they need to enforce the law if they wanted to. If the spreadsheet had said "male" instead of "female" they would fly to Uranus to gather evidence if they needed to.
      • giantg2 5y ago
        "They have all the resources they need to enforce the law..." Maybe an individual occurrence. Not at scale. If I remember correctly, 80+% of cases go to a plea deal, wait times for a court date are months or years, and the murder solve rate in the US is only 70%. To me, it sounds like the courts are overwhelmed and even the most serious crimes have a relatively low solve rate.
  • Digory 5y ago
    Activist judges didn’t make this spreadsheet. The company is responding to social pressure. It’s people trying to atone for the immorality of their social caste. The courts have been clear that this kind of discrimination is illegal. “Our next engineer must be female” isn’t legal, unless there’s something bizarrely gender specific about this task. If the Company is a federal contractor, this could be nuclear. Talk to a lawyer, not HN.
• scarface74 5y ago
  I am a minority and I find it disgusting. If you want to increase diversity - don’t give internal referrals more weight than external applications. Recruit from a diversity of schools or heck I’m even okay with training programs that help underrepresented groups prepare for tech interviews by targeting schools like HBCUs and local non prestigious schools. On the other hand, I mentored a female intern last summer. After talking to her, I’m convinced that attractive females in tech have it a lot harder than males. They have to be extra careful to set boundaries and not give off the wrong signals by mistake.
  • throwbigdata 5y ago
    Attractive guys too!
• CodeGlitch 5y ago
  When filling out forms when it includes DIE questions, the best approach is to check all the boxes. If anyone questions it they can land themselves in real deep water. The best way to combat this nonsense is peaceful protesting.
  • lolinder 5y ago
    They don't have to question your checked boxes to your face, they can just immediately reject you when it's obvious you're not what they're actually looking for.
    • CodeGlitch 5y ago
      "I identify as female" The hole that the left has dug itself is very very deep at this point.
• Trufa 5y ago
  Whatever you do, don't take legal advice from comments here.
• astura 5y ago
  Does your company have a legal department? That's who you really want to consult, not internet forums. I'm not trying to be a jerk - it's just that the legally depends on the particular specifics. Sounds illegal to me at first pass, but if government contacting is involved or other special cases it gets more complicated. You should probably make a report to the EEOC if you can't consult legal. You should also ask your engineering VP if they consulted legal before instituting the requirement.
• fangthrow0548 5y ago
  I'm familiar with a smarter version of this: HR created a DEI working group of self-selected employees. This group is given a stack of resumes and charged with screening them for compatibility with the company's DEI goals. This way they can have a process to reliably screen out unwanted demographics without anyone being ordered or even suggested to do so.
  • jjoonathan 5y ago
    Ah, the good 'ol "if we don't leave a paper trail they can't prove we broke the law" technique.
• rPlayer6554 5y ago
  WHY DO PEOPLE ASK FOR LEGAL ADVICE HERE? ASK A LAWYER....
  • EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
    "Lawyer" seems to be a synonym for All Seeing All Comprehending God. Lawyers that I have met were mostly clueless, lazy, greedy and caused harm to the client.
    • rPlayer6554 5y ago
      Whatever opinions you have, the legal system was designed by lawyers in such a complicated fashion that only lawyers can keep track of it. Like that or not, it's the way it is.
• TheGigaChad 5y ago
• giantg2 5y ago
  "must be female" Yes? It's illegal. This instruction removes the chance of any other member type of that protected class from being hired. You can report it to the NLRB, FBI/DOJ, or your state AG. You'll have to document everything while being careful not to break any recording/privacy laws. Not sure anything will really be done. Probably just bring hardship on yourself.
  • raincom 5y ago
    Don't report to NLRB, FBI/DOJ, or to the state AG. They will leak to your HR, and ruin your career. NLRB, FBI/DOJ, AGs are just run by politics du jour.
    • raxxorrax 5y ago
      Not from the US, but then you need to hold these institutions to account. Difficult with a non-informed public about these issues, but it will hit them if you take legal action against them directly. Nobody wants to have dirt on their vests and you have to make some of it stick.
      • giantg2 5y ago
        Not likely. Law enforcement and prosecutors have discretion. They can decide they don't want to pursue something. You can't sue them for deciding not to pursue the company.
      • raincom 5y ago
        Revolving door and prosecutorial discretion is one kind of legally authorized corruption. That's why when one files a complaint with FBI/DOJ/etc, it will be leaked immediately to the higher echelons of FAANG companies. Why do they leak, even if they don't want to prosecute using discretion? Because these guys (or their relatives) want to get cushy jobs at FAANG or have FAANG refer legal work to the firms they will recommend. A small guy has no chance of succeeding this, unless one wants to ruin one's career.
  • projektfu 5y ago
• moron4hire 5y ago
  Maybe ask about what this policy means for non-binary people and see if it makes them squirm. One of the reasons why a lot of SV companies like Google have a problem with diversity is because they focus almost all of their recruiting drives on a few schools and hire mostly people with degrees from those schools, which themselves have diversity problems. If you keep going to the same wells you shouldn't be surprised to buy find different results.
• floatingatoll 5y ago
  No, unless women are not a minority in that job bucket at your employer. Remediation for insufficient diversity is acceptable. Gratuitous hiring of “do nothing” / “under spec” employees is not, but that’s not in play in your case. I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.
• svloophole 5y ago
  Many tech companies are actively discriminating against asian/white males. Often it is tech companies run by asian/white males. Affirmative action is the default policy. The main way I've seen this implemented is by controlling who gets recruited through LinkedIn. Obviously qualified asian/white men simply get skipped over, filtered out, in many cases. They never even know they were discriminated against. The other way is that managers are highly "encouraged" to say yes on hires that they would on the merits say no to. As a hiring manager, I was told by an HR recruiter that there would be "problems" if my next hire wasn't a "DIBs candidate" (Diversity Inclusion Belonging) after hiring two non-URM (Under Represented Minority) candidates in a row. All I would receive in the way of candidates to interview were non-asian/white males. And most were obviously unqualified based on the technical screening criteria we had established. The big question is whether the current policy of tech companies is legal, ethical, and effective in the long-term or whether it's a short-term fix that causes long-term harm.
  • __turbobrew__ 5y ago
    > Many tech companies are actively discriminating against asian/white males Reminds me of a saying I heard once: “always try and get an asian male doctor because they are discriminated against the most in med school admissions programs. The asian men who made it past the discrimination had to be so much better than the others to make it.”
    • NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
      This is exactly the problem...distorting employment markets makes the stereotypes TRUE! Say you have a software engineering team, and it's nine men and one woman, and it's that way because the pool you hire out if is 9:1, and you only hire from the top decile. If someone decrees that Thou Shalt Hire Women, you certainly can...it's just that the candidates you get will be less than in the top decile. If you go as far as to make it to 5:5, then your average man will now be top half decile, and the average woman will be 2.5th decile. The difference will be obvious, though costly to talk about, and you have just created a situation where the stereotype "women aren't as good as men at software engineering" is true.
• mimikatz 5y ago
  Not a lawyer take 1. Likely illegal 2. Likely no one will ever care 3. On the off chance they do care, very unlikely you will be in any trouble or hurt by it 4. It is a bigger risk to question it 5. This is wrong and bad, but choosing if you want to fight it is a hard choice.
• xwdv 5y ago
  Extremely illegal. A position should go to the best candidate for the job, not to someone that passes discriminatory filters. You need to report this ASAP.
• leephillips 5y ago
  > Does region or state within the USA matter? No, this is covered by Federal law. > If this is illegal then what's the right way to handle this? This is incontrovertibly a direct and intentional violation of Title VII. Call the EOC immediately and get it on record that you have informed them of this. Otherwise you are in danger of being seen as an accomplice or otherwise complicit—even if you are not involved directly at implementing the illegal policy. Intentional violations of Title VII open up the possibility of punitive damages in any suit brought by any man who believes that he has been discriminated against. You can be named as a defendant. Protect yourself now. Obviously, this is also deeply immoral.
• Plasmoid 5y ago
  At best, it's unethical. Like someone else said, it's maybe possibly legal if done in a very specific and supervised way. That is almost certainly not happening. What's likely is that someone has decided to be diverse and people over the org are doing this on an ad-hoc manner by institution hard and soft quotas. This is absolutely illegal. Speak with an attorney for 30m to discuss this properly. What should you do though? 1. Go along with it. Some of the discovery during the Damore v Google lawsuit found that some Google employees was doing exactly this. Specifically holding positions for under-represented minorities or lowering the hiring bar. 2. Find a new job. A lot of work, and a lot of other companies do similar things. 3. Ignore the instructions. Depending on how invested upper management is in this, it may be a career limiting move and end up requiring (2) anyways. 4. Become a whistle-blower. More of a career limiting move than participating.
• logicallee 5y ago
  I'm studying statistics just at the moment, and for anyone who is curious and has an open mind, the most likely (in a Bayesian sense) reason that the OP has posted this comment is because they do not have access to a single female Senior Software Engineer who they feel meet their requirements. (This is more likely than an alternative explanation such as that the best candidate for the position OP wishes to fill is female, but OP refuses to hire a female.) For anyone who is curious and has an open mind, since women are half of the population and attain a large number of degrees (as opposed to many decades ago when they were not allowed in education at all), why does OP not have access to female candidates OP feeels meets their requirements? Since I am studying statistics, I looked up the answer in a lecture about women, collected in a book called the Past, Present, and Future of Statistical Science[1] There are interesting comments about sexism within the science of statistics, for example: Thwarted employment search after college Having discarded high school and college teaching, actuarial science, and medicine, I sought employment after college graduation in 1960. I was aware of only two methods to find a job: look in the newspapers’ “Help Wanted” sections and talk with employers at job fairs on campus. The newspaper route proved fruitless. Younger readers may not be aware that newspapers had separate “Help Wanted Female” and “Help Wanted Male” sections until the late 1960s or early 1970s when such practice eventually was ruled to be illegal sex discrimination. In 1960 advertised positions using math skills and interest were in “Help Wanted Male,” and I assumed that it would be futile to apply. Job interviews on campus with employers played out similarly; all positions were segregated by gender and all technical positions were for males. One vignette, among many, illustrates the employment culture for women in the US in 1960. When I registered for an interview on campus with IBM, I was required to take a math aptitude test. The IBM interviewer commented that he had never seen such a high score from any applicant and offered me either a secretarial or an entry sales position. I countered that I was interested in their advertised technical positions that required a math background, especially given my score on their math aptitude test, but he simply said that those positions were for males. End of conversation. - Clearly, this process explains why OP does not have access to female applicants he feels are qualified. Perhaps OP is judging the history of candidates and applicants, but many other people judged their gender in the past when excluding them. What should OP do? Of course, OP can't force others who excluded women from going back in history and including them instead. Is there anything OP can do now to try to rectify the injustice? I think that one thing that OP could potentially do is follow the process outlined in the company. He could hire a woman for the role. I think it is the right thing to do in OP's situation and given the history of the industry. [1] if you search for this title on Google one of the top results is the full PDF so I think it's okay to post it here: https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AMSTAT/71a758c7-5229-4729-bb64-caf9d1cf855f/UploadedImages/past-present-future-copss.pdf https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AMSTAT/71a758c7...
• mrkentutbabi 5y ago
  It is illegal. Report it.
• a30b40 5y ago
  Contact your local labor board with a copy of the spreadsheet. There are hundreds of lawyers who will take your case pro-bono and probably bankrupt your company unless it's a FAANG. So the real question is do you want to go out into the world again and look for a job, or not? Because if this is true, you have absolute evidence of racism in hiring which is very, very, very illegal.
• elil17 5y ago
  Here are a few things you should do, as well as explanations of why you should do them. 1. Do not delete or destroy any files. Doing the work your directed to do won’t put you in any personal danger (your company can be sued, you can’t). Destroying evidence could make you liable personally. 2. Let your VP know again that you think this violates US non-discrimination law. Let them know in an email and copy your personal account so you always have a record. Also copy your company’s legal or ethics department if possible. I would write something like “Hi [VP]. I was asked to create a list of job requirements which were based on gender and race. I support increasing diversity in our company but doing this would violate US equal opportunity employment law and would put the company in legal jeopardy. I will not perform this action because it would result in discrimination. I will gladly perform other actions to support our DEI initiatives.” That way, it’s clear you protested. If anyone tries to say it was your fault, you’ll have evidence showing that you protested. 3. If you wish, you could advise your boss on other DEI initiatives that would not be discriminatory, such as recruiting at women in STEM events or offering a leadership training course for underrepresented groups. 4. Refuse to perform tasks that would result in discrimination. Know that US EEO law also protects you against retaliation for refusing to discriminate. According to EEOC.gov, “It is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for… refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination.” Having an email record that you refused to perform the discriminatory action (see point #2) will help you win a lawsuit or settlement if you are fired or turned down for a promotion due to this. At the end of the day, you are doing your company a favor by not taking this action. If the line “Senior Software Engineer (must be female)” ever showed up in an employment discrimination case your company would lose the trial pretty much instantly.
• femto113 5y ago
  What percentage of your current SSEs are female?
• woodpanel 5y ago
  I'd advise all US devs to just flee the country, if it weren't for VCs and US-led unicorn-acquisitions who'll eventually spread this DEI nonsense to the rest of the world (some US-financed European unicorns already start introducing Black History months in February, talking about cultural imperialism eh?). But it'll at least buy you some time. And who knows, maybe when your country of choice is up – there'll be a self-hating non-white country adopting this crap and you'll be able to get the minority treatment.
• austincheney 5y ago
  Yes, that is illegal according to the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have had many software job interviews that were illegal. Most of that were interviewers asking about my familial status because parents are perceived as more dependent upon the employment with less mobility and spouses are perceived as more stable and less likely to commit inter-personnel policy violations. I just disclose the requested information. If you actually are a senior manager you should already know this is illegal.
• rparet 5y ago
  (I am not a lawyer) It’s ok in the US to have a goal to hire more women or URMs, and to do sourcing, etc. to bring in more candidates like this. I think the potential concerns here are the use of “must” in the spreadsheet, and what activities you’ll be expected to perform, OP. I’d recommend advocating for changing “must” to some other goal-based language. If you’re doing the sourcing, I’d also think about setting goals here (x% of candidates moved from stage 1 to stage 2 are women/urms, for example). What’s not ok: * not interviewing or hiring someone because they are not a woman * giving someone a different interview for any reason (barring accommodations for disabilities, etc) * saying “we are only hiring women for this role” (for example) * saying “we are not hiring any men for this role” (for example) * having a quota that must be met. (i.e. a target, not a goal). There are ways that this can play out that might seem discriminatory but are not. For example, if your goal is to have X% of final stage candidates be women and you haven’t gotten there yet, not hiring a non-woman final stage candidate that is otherwise hirable is not discriminatory. See the “Rooney rule” and other examples. What I think you should do: * assume positive intent. No one person is responsible for this systemic shitshow / imbalance, and people are doing the best they can to fix it. Understanding how to do that in the context of the law is sometimes difficult. * advocate for the use of appropriate goals that support the initiative. * politely object when someone asks you to do one of the “should not dos” above. Ask them to restate in the context of goals. * don’t get caught up in culture warrior nonsense that circulates around this issue. You’re an engineer, recruitment is a system. Treat it like a systems problem. * support your women colleagues and women in tech in general. Systemic bias is real. People who believe women shouldn’t be in tech exist. Do what you can to help overcome these obstacles.
• Simon_O_Rourke 5y ago
  I worked in one particular tech company where this went on for promotions as well as hiring, but nothing was ever put down in writing. It was all handled in back room meetings at a manager, director or VP level, so they could meet diversity quotas and get personal share bonuses. First be 100 percent sure you've got something in writing to back up what you are claiming, then, bring it to the US Dept of Labor. But you won't get everything in writing, and it's a dangerous short term career move, even though it might be right/moral/legal thing to do.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• francoisdevlin 5y ago
  If you seriously need legal advice talk to an attorney, not HN.
• flashgordon 5y ago
  Do you have a centralized hiring committee? If so then you might be able too to "blame" it on them for not having too many "ideal" candidates in the pipeline?
• tempnow987 5y ago
  I'd be VERY careful here! Please evaluate YOUR OWN downside risk vs upside risk. Your supervisor has asked you discriminate. Politically, under current administration, almost EVERY enforcement body will not actually take action here even if its clear cut discrimination. Ie, they won't care. Out in the job market, if you are anti-diversity / take any steps to undermine a diversity initiative - that can follow you now for a very long time. Wilberg, who recruited candidates for engineering and technology positions for YouTube and parent company Google, also alleges in the suit that for several quarters Google would not make employment offers for technical positions to applicants “who were not ‘diverse,’" which the lawsuit alleges Google defined as women, black and Latino. The lawsuit said Wilberg complained about this to his managers and HR. He was fired in November for, among other things, “not meeting goals” and “talking too much in meetings,” reasons that the lawsuit called “pretextual.” “Plaintiff was an exemplary employee and received positive performance evaluations until he began opposing illegal hiring and recruiting practices at Google,” the complaint asserts. The reality is that to get diversity anywhere close to what Silicon Valley is being asked to get it too, pretty significant steps like this will need to be taken. The company may have evaluated that the downside of NOT having women / minorities in positions is too high.
  • anon7725 5y ago
    > I'd be VERY careful here! Please evaluate YOUR OWN downside risk vs upside risk. +1. I work in a senior engineering role at a large tech company. While not a HM, I have been in similar situations to OP - where apparent EEOC violations are casually discussed and documented. I would never comment on or report these issues, though I have saved some "evidence" just in case it’s needed. It’s literally all downside risk to engage in the subject matter. At this point the goal is to get to retirement/FI/downshifting in a few years without being irradiated by these issues.
  • waterhouse 5y ago
    I agree with all the above until this point: > The company may have evaluated that the downside of NOT having women / minorities in positions is too high. I don't think that's the exact calculus that gets made. I think it's more of a social process, where one person decides to suggest it, and anyone who has misgivings keeps their mouth shut, while anyone who thinks it's a good idea says so with enthusiasm. There probably was a time when hard-nosed cost-benefit evaluations governed decisions like these, but I think that's not how it tends to work currently (although there's enough variation across companies that who knows).
• justinzollars 5y ago
  DEI came out of no where. It was as if 2020 happened, and then, suddenly every company in the country had a DEI consultant directing hiring and compensation practices. It reminds me of a party commissar, embedded in every organization telling the organization who, based on the politics of the day, to hire.
• tpoacher 5y ago
  I think the more pertinent question is, why would you want to continue working for such a company.
  • xyzzyz 5y ago
    Most companies these days are doing exactly the same, the more competent ones just don’t put it in writing, leaving paper trail. You can’t escape this sort of systemic discrimination, it permeates the society to the bone.
• tpoacher 5y ago
  > I had a call with VP eng where I raised the issue again and they insisted that the requirement remain. I would have loved for you to have followed that up with "Ok then. Do you also have particular breast size requirements?" and watch them squirm as they realise how the "must be female" requirement could be interpreted in other ways.
• LurkersWillLurk 5y ago
  You should talk to an employment lawyer before you go to HR or anyone in your company. You also have the right to file a complaint with the EEOC, but I would not do that until you talk to a lawyer. The reason why you need to talk to a lawyer is that your lawyer is ethically obligated to represent your best interests, not your company's.
• zacharycohn 5y ago
  Incredible how many lawyers frequent HN.
• livinglist 5y ago
  for me personally as an applicant, I won’t care that much as long as you don’t waste my time giving me interviews that won’t get me nowhere because I’m a male…. just reject my application and we are good.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• egberts1 5y ago
  HR should have denoted an asterisk on each entry saying something to the effect of “to comply with hiring policy.” And to use phrase like “try for more female”, instead of “must be female”.
• irvingprime 5y ago
  Legal. Illegal. Don't know. You should ask a lawyer. I can tell that you are not comfortable with this. You suspect it's illegal and might still be uncomfortable even if it's not. Were I in your shoes, I would be looking for an exit strategy right quick. (For full disclosure, I should mention I'm looking for an exit from my current job for entirely different reasons). Do not swallow your own sense of right and wrong. Do not go along to get along. You will regret that deeply later on. Find an environment that doesn't make you worry that you might be participating in something illegal, or unethical, or immoral.
• BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
  If you say anything, it's possible that you would be ending your career. If you do, it is likely that you will be hunting for a new job (and your reputation as a bigot may follow you unless you move to a new industry, and even then depending on how profile your departure is). This has become a common practice in the tech industry, and unquestioned support is expected at a minimum. If you have non-standard hardware on your body, then you can push back a little, but if not then you best stay quiet. If you continue to push back, depending on how hard you push what you can expect is many awkward conversations, decreasing performance reviews, and career stagnation. Getting to the "next step in the ladder" typically requires you to demonstrate your willingness to implement these policies, let alone simply allowing them. You also need to be careful what you say, as anything you put in writing could come back (potentially out of context) to bite you. You may be recorded a few times in private IRL meetings, so remember that just because it's in a closed-door meeting doesn't mean it is private. I know this sounds paranoid, but I've watched a friend of mine in SV go through this very thing. This is a man who spends his free time volunteering to help underprivileged students learn to code and build robots with raspberry pis in his spare time. I've known him for years and he is not a chauvinist, he just doesn't think it's right to discriminate based on immutable characteristics. I wouldn't worry about any legal liability on your part. IANAL but I'm certain many good lawyers have reviewed the policy as it's fairly common now. I also can't imagine anyone being sued/prosecuted for giving females preference in the tech industry.
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    At some point you have to stand up for this. Yes, it might cost you, but it is easy to punish companies for their behavior here. SV is still an exception, but I believe companies with such HR policies have a severe problem with drawing talent. While it might be nice to work with more women for once, such discrimination isn't worth it. People supporting this are terribly afraid of dirt and the best strategy is to turn the most ideological followers against them. That isn't as hard as you might believe as everybody will make mistakes at some point.
  • Deebs12 5y ago
    It's gone farther than "if you say anything". I recently got an "improvement needed" evaluation on one of my goals to support the Diversity and Inclusion initiatives of my department. I am a hiring manager, and not only did I abide by all of the guidelines and processes, but I also hired and promoted multiple female and minority applicants at a higher rate than the department as a whole. I still insisted that they were qualified, of course. When I questioned the evaluation, I was told that it wasn't enough to support the initiatives and get the results, but you also "NEED TO BELIEVE IN THEM FULLY". Apparently, my boss believes that I am not in 100% alignment with the philosophies behind them. He's correct in that I do not agree with flagrant discrimination based on sex, race, or any other characteristic, regardless of which direction they are in. I'd fire anyone who discriminated against women, minorities, etc., but if I even SEEM TO QUESTION or be troubled about whether the same shouldn't be done against "some people", then I "need improvement."
• aklemm 5y ago
  I’d be far more concerned about anti-female bias that doesn’t even get recognized.
• 7402 5y ago
  From U.S. Government Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment. The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age. Job Advertisements It is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. For example, a help-wanted ad that seeks "females" or "recent college graduates" may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• chet_dudeman 5y ago
  What would happen if you don't sue this company, but also don't comply with the discriminatory requirement? Would they fire you for not following an illegal order? (As in, interviewing and including male candidates anyway). "I was just following orders" is not a valid legal defense in this situation. And beyond the legal sphere, what do you know is the right thing to do? Either way, I'd recommend you preserve whatever documents and notes that you can for the future.
• filed 5y ago