3 ms·

The company I worked at had a diversity interview rule like this, but it’s not really clear to me how it’s legal. Isn’t it literally making hiring decisions bas

• iamdbtoo 2y ago
  The goal of those policies is to achieve equity, not equality.
  • throwaway984393 2y ago
    [dead]
• sva_ 2y ago
  The final decision should be based on merit, otherwise it would be discriminatory and also self-sabotaging. If unqualified people get their time wasted by being invited because they fulfill some diversity quality, but no skill quality; I'll put the blame on the system that imposes the rule.
  • infotainment 2y ago
    I see what you mean, but even the act of choosing to interview a candidate (or not) based on a protected attribute seems like it would be illegal, since whether or not someone interviews at all is generally a function of the "merit" seen in their resume (or lack thereof). For example, if someone selling a house chose which prospective buyers were allowed to tour the house based on race, I assume that would definitely be illegal, even if the "final decision" on who to sell to was ostensibly not based on it.
• avidiax 2y ago
  This is essentially the Rooney Rule. It's not saying that the candidate must have protected attribute X, but that the candidate pool must have variants of X. I think the courts would take a dim view of claiming that a procedure to partly mitigate bias regarding attribute X is somehow illegal discrimination along the same attribute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule