Stemming employment litigation in a few steps
Hiring lawsuits and litigation costs can be mitigated by instituting blind screening and online applications at the beginning of the hiring process.
January 31, 2014 at 04:54 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Litigation is expensive, no matter how large the business involved, and litigation that derives from hiring lawsuits is no exception. While companies mostly desire to avoid the courtroom so as to conserve costs and focus more on products and services, in the case of hiring discrimination, they often cannot avoid it. And discrimination cases are often more in the public eye than other legal agendas. A recent business management blog described the ways in which hiring lawsuits and litigation costs can be mitigated by instituting blind screening and online applications at the beginning of the hiring process.
If companies treat online applications as the primary method through which they accrue applicants and filter their resumes, then only those who obtain interviews can have a basis for discrimination. The provisos of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in the U.S. prevent protected characteristics from being asked of employees including race, age, sexual orientation, marital status, and other items. “Blind” hiring or screening via an online application process eliminates one step of possible interaction with potential candidates that would be fodder for a discrimination suit since applicants interact only with the company's application interface until sought for an interview.
The blog suggests the following actions to implement in the hiring process to ensure blind-hiring and making the most of the online application system:
“Consider accepting applications almost exclusively online.” That way, applicants who come in for interviews are not considered on different playing fields for the job depending on the interaction they have had with employers.
“Consider screening applications with software that looks for pertinent experience, etc.” Software applications exist that include algorithms to scan for relevant points of interest to employers such as education and previous experience.
“Instruct applicants to remove birth dates and graduation dates from résumés.” If the applicants include personal information at the initial application, it will be more difficult to establish blind-hiring, but having that step at the outset could significantly impact the amount of personal information the employer has access to during the process.
Some simple steps could prevent much time and money from being spent on discrimination cases that dash company reputation and become expensive.
Further reading:
Litigation is expensive, no matter how large the business involved, and litigation that derives from hiring lawsuits is no exception. While companies mostly desire to avoid the courtroom so as to conserve costs and focus more on products and services, in the case of hiring discrimination, they often cannot avoid it. And discrimination cases are often more in the public eye than other legal agendas. A recent business management blog described the ways in which hiring lawsuits and litigation costs can be mitigated by instituting blind screening and online applications at the beginning of the hiring process.
If companies treat online applications as the primary method through which they accrue applicants and filter their resumes, then only those who obtain interviews can have a basis for discrimination. The provisos of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in the U.S. prevent protected characteristics from being asked of employees including race, age, sexual orientation, marital status, and other items. “Blind” hiring or screening via an online application process eliminates one step of possible interaction with potential candidates that would be fodder for a discrimination suit since applicants interact only with the company's application interface until sought for an interview.
The blog suggests the following actions to implement in the hiring process to ensure blind-hiring and making the most of the online application system:
“Consider accepting applications almost exclusively online.” That way, applicants who come in for interviews are not considered on different playing fields for the job depending on the interaction they have had with employers.
“Consider screening applications with software that looks for pertinent experience, etc.” Software applications exist that include algorithms to scan for relevant points of interest to employers such as education and previous experience.
“Instruct applicants to remove birth dates and graduation dates from résumés.” If the applicants include personal information at the initial application, it will be more difficult to establish blind-hiring, but having that step at the outset could significantly impact the amount of personal information the employer has access to during the process.
Some simple steps could prevent much time and money from being spent on discrimination cases that dash company reputation and become expensive.
Further reading:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250