6 ms·

Isn't this illegal during the interview process since Facebook reveals practically every protected status?

by Zikes 15y ago

warpspeed 15y ago
I'd imagine it's probably not illegal, since that's not the only information on your profile. Just like they can't ask you your race or marital status, but when you come in for the interview they can certainly see the color of your skin and if you're wearing a wedding band. It should be illegal though- I'm not sure when it ever became acceptable to ask for someone's login credentials.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  Should it be illegal though, if the applicants have to agree to do it in the first place? That's the piece of this that seems to get lost - the applicants are, for whatever hard-to-fathom reason, consenting. It's shady, and seems short-sighted, but no one is disclosing information against their will here.
  - Zikes 15y ago
    Asking for protected information is illegal, whether the applicant consents to give it or not.
    - dripton 15y ago
      Can you cite the law?
      - Zikes 15y ago
        I am not a lawyer, but having worked in a corporate setting for years this is something that's drilled into us constantly. Edit: A bit of searching leads me to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964). I'm not sure if the wording specifically prohibits asking about protected statuses, but any legal decisions about that would probably have their roots in that Act.
      - lambersley 15y ago
        In Canada, there are two provisions of law that are common in many "manager 101" training courses that I can recall: The Employment Equity Act is aimed at protecting women, visible minorities, people with disabilities and Aboriginals. "5. Every employer shall implement employment equity by (a) identifying and eliminating employment barriers against persons in designated groups that result from the employer’s employment systems, policies and practices that are not authorized by law" (1) The Canadian Human Rights Act is aimed at preventing discrimination "practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation,marital status, family status, disability orconviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted." "7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly, (b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,on a prohibited ground of discrimination." (2) I'm no lawyer but I would tread lightly on "differentiating" by any of these statuses. (1) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.401/page-3.html#h-5 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.401/page-3.html#... (2) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/H-6.pdf http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/H-6.pdf
  - warpspeed 15y ago
    Should it be illegal to ask interviewees to sleep with you in order to be considered for the job? After all you're not forcing them, and some people might be desperate enough for a job to consent.
    - brown9-2 15y ago
      You can already sue for such harassment/discrimination. I just don't see why we need a special law regarding Facebook here if the underlying discrimination possible is already illegal.
      - warpspeed 15y ago
        I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that this practice is so wide-spread that there's enough grey area for hiring managers to get away with it, so the current laws aren't enough. Internet social networking is such a new and world-changing concept that I believe new laws are necessary to specifically address these issues.
        brown9-2 15y ago
        But the underlying information - your social interactions and personal communications - are not new. An employer could ask for your email history, banking information, etc. Should that be illegal as well? What about background checks, credit history check, etc? My only point is that I don't see why there needs to be a special exemption for social networking data, if the predatory behavior is already illegal b
        warpspeed 15y ago
        I agree with you that it's silly to think of special laws being created specifically for facebook and the like. The problem with laws in all areas right now is that the internet and everything that came with it is so far "out there" that there's no way that lawmakers 50 years ago could imagine its impact. That's lead to now, where some laws are wholly inadequate to deal with real issues that we face. In hiring laws, it's the applicants that are getting screwed by the lack of these laws, because their choices are to either acquiesce to the hiring manager's demands or lose the job. While it's easy for some people to say "I'd just walk out," a single mother who needs to feed her kids probably wouldn't be so quick to do so. In the end, it's a matter of the job market. If the market were flush with openings, hiring managers would have to be on their best behavior for fear of losing a promising candidate. Right now though, that's unfortunately not the case, so it's up to regulation to give people some basic rights. In my opinion.
  - justinhj 15y ago
    It should be illegal because the balance of power is in favour of the employer most of the time. Same as questions about whether you plan to have children, if it was optional to ask then those who don't would choose to answer and those who do would not, puttong them at a disadvantage.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    It's not hard to fathom at all. For as much as the average person complains about work, people really want jobs. There's a severe power imbalance. If you don't take the job, in most cases there are seven other qualified applications who will take it instead. Odds are that one of them will fork over their login info. And even though few people truly want to disclose it, once it becomes a de-facto standard, people will have little choice. The power imbalance is the crucial problem, and companies shouldn't be allowed to dictate unreasonable terms to employees or potential employees just because that imbalance allows them to obtain consent in most cases.
brown9-2 15y ago
It seems that if you were not hired after the company viewed this private information, it would be very hard for the employer to avoid claims of discrimination based on what they could have seen.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  as far as I know most of the groups that it is illegal to discriminate against would not require facebook access to confirm membership of.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    I don't see how your marriage status, parental status or sexual preferences could otherwise be disclosed during a regular job screen process. However, the employer doesn't have to "confirm membership" of any status in order to open themselves up to credible legal action. All they need to do is give the impression that they were given some information about protected status, and their "no hire" decision becomes easily suspect. It would be hard in a litigation setting for the employer, after viewing someone's Facebook data, to be able to cite and document exactly which pieces of information influenced their decision, and which pieces of (discriminatory) information did not influence their decision. This isn't something that a smart employer would want to open themselves up to. It seems like the actual cases cited have all been rather limited in scope (checking prison guards for gang affiliation).
wisty 15y ago
IANAL, but I don't think it's illegal per say. It's just illegal for the company to consider protected things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_i...). However, if it's a civil matter (i.e. you sue), then you just need "balance of evidence", not "proof beyond reasonable doubt". You'll try to prove that it was a factor, and they'll try to prove that it wasn't. You might argue that at this stage you're be neck and neck with the other candidates (having passed the previous filters), and it's just going to come down to a "gut feeling" from the hiring manager - so they will almost certainly be swayed by anything which they might dislike on your Facebook page. I've a feeling it would be a horrible case to try to defend against. There's valid reasons for demanding Facebook login details, but if I were an employer I'd use a trusted third party to look for me, and only report things which have been cleared by a legal team. When the Australian government does security vetting, this is how it works - security personal do all the vetting, keep everything private except the "security clearance passed / failed", and can get thrown in prison if they let the wrong information out.
- Drbble 15y ago
  Aside: "per se". It's Latin.

Isn't this illegal during the interview process since Facebook reveals practically every protected status?

by Zikes 15y ago

Isn't this illegal during the interview process since Facebook reveals practically every protected status?

I'd imagine it's probably not illegal, since that's not the only information on your profile. Just like they can't ask you your race or marital status, but when you come in for the interview they can certainly see the color of your skin and if you're wearing a wedding band. It should be illegal though- I'm not sure when it ever became acceptable to ask for someone's login credentials.

brown9-2 15y ago
Should it be illegal though, if the applicants have to agree to do it in the first place? That's the piece of this that seems to get lost - the applicants are, for whatever hard-to-fathom reason, consenting. It's shady, and seems short-sighted, but no one is disclosing information against their will here.
- Zikes 15y ago
  Asking for protected information is illegal, whether the applicant consents to give it or not.
  - dripton 15y ago
    Can you cite the law?
    - Zikes 15y ago
      I am not a lawyer, but having worked in a corporate setting for years this is something that's drilled into us constantly. Edit: A bit of searching leads me to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964). I'm not sure if the wording specifically prohibits asking about protected statuses, but any legal decisions about that would probably have their roots in that Act.
    - lambersley 15y ago
      In Canada, there are two provisions of law that are common in many "manager 101" training courses that I can recall: The Employment Equity Act is aimed at protecting women, visible minorities, people with disabilities and Aboriginals. "5. Every employer shall implement employment equity by (a) identifying and eliminating employment barriers against persons in designated groups that result from the employer’s employment systems, policies and practices that are not authorized by law" (1) The Canadian Human Rights Act is aimed at preventing discrimination "practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation,marital status, family status, disability orconviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted." "7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly, (b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,on a prohibited ground of discrimination." (2) I'm no lawyer but I would tread lightly on "differentiating" by any of these statuses. (1) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.401/page-3.html#h-5 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.401/page-3.html#... (2) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/H-6.pdf http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/H-6.pdf
- warpspeed 15y ago
  Should it be illegal to ask interviewees to sleep with you in order to be considered for the job? After all you're not forcing them, and some people might be desperate enough for a job to consent.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    You can already sue for such harassment/discrimination. I just don't see why we need a special law regarding Facebook here if the underlying discrimination possible is already illegal.
    - warpspeed 15y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that this practice is so wide-spread that there's enough grey area for hiring managers to get away with it, so the current laws aren't enough. Internet social networking is such a new and world-changing concept that I believe new laws are necessary to specifically address these issues.
      - brown9-2 15y ago
        But the underlying information - your social interactions and personal communications - are not new. An employer could ask for your email history, banking information, etc. Should that be illegal as well? What about background checks, credit history check, etc? My only point is that I don't see why there needs to be a special exemption for social networking data, if the predatory behavior is already illegal b
        warpspeed 15y ago
        I agree with you that it's silly to think of special laws being created specifically for facebook and the like. The problem with laws in all areas right now is that the internet and everything that came with it is so far "out there" that there's no way that lawmakers 50 years ago could imagine its impact. That's lead to now, where some laws are wholly inadequate to deal with real issues that we face. In hiring laws, it's the applicants that are getting screwed by the lack of these laws, because their choices are to either acquiesce to the hiring manager's demands or lose the job. While it's easy for some people to say "I'd just walk out," a single mother who needs to feed her kids probably wouldn't be so quick to do so. In the end, it's a matter of the job market. If the market were flush with openings, hiring managers would have to be on their best behavior for fear of losing a promising candidate. Right now though, that's unfortunately not the case, so it's up to regulation to give people some basic rights. In my opinion.
- justinhj 15y ago
  It should be illegal because the balance of power is in favour of the employer most of the time. Same as questions about whether you plan to have children, if it was optional to ask then those who don't would choose to answer and those who do would not, puttong them at a disadvantage.
- mikeash 15y ago
  It's not hard to fathom at all. For as much as the average person complains about work, people really want jobs. There's a severe power imbalance. If you don't take the job, in most cases there are seven other qualified applications who will take it instead. Odds are that one of them will fork over their login info. And even though few people truly want to disclose it, once it becomes a de-facto standard, people will have little choice. The power imbalance is the crucial problem, and companies shouldn't be allowed to dictate unreasonable terms to employees or potential employees just because that imbalance allows them to obtain consent in most cases.

brown9-2 15y ago

It seems that if you were not hired after the company viewed this private information, it would be very hard for the employer to avoid claims of discrimination based on what they could have seen.

jiggy2011 15y ago
as far as I know most of the groups that it is illegal to discriminate against would not require facebook access to confirm membership of.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  I don't see how your marriage status, parental status or sexual preferences could otherwise be disclosed during a regular job screen process. However, the employer doesn't have to "confirm membership" of any status in order to open themselves up to credible legal action. All they need to do is give the impression that they were given some information about protected status, and their "no hire" decision becomes easily suspect. It would be hard in a litigation setting for the employer, after viewing someone's Facebook data, to be able to cite and document exactly which pieces of information influenced their decision, and which pieces of (discriminatory) information did not influence their decision. This isn't something that a smart employer would want to open themselves up to. It seems like the actual cases cited have all been rather limited in scope (checking prison guards for gang affiliation).

wisty 15y ago

IANAL, but I don't think it's illegal per say. It's just illegal for the company to consider protected things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_i...). However, if it's a civil matter (i.e. you sue), then you just need "balance of evidence", not "proof beyond reasonable doubt". You'll try to prove that it was a factor, and they'll try to prove that it wasn't. You might argue that at this stage you're be neck and neck with the other candidates (having passed the previous filters), and it's just going to come down to a "gut feeling" from the hiring manager - so they will almost certainly be swayed by anything which they might dislike on your Facebook page. I've a feeling it would be a horrible case to try to defend against. There's valid reasons for demanding Facebook login details, but if I were an employer I'd use a trusted third party to look for me, and only report things which have been cleared by a legal team. When the Australian government does security vetting, this is how it works - security personal do all the vetting, keep everything private except the "security clearance passed / failed", and can get thrown in prison if they let the wrong information out.

Drbble 15y ago
Aside: "per se". It's Latin.