Web Hosting Talk : Other Forums : Web Hosting Lounge : Annoyed

[netsolutions]

I just found out that my last message was kicked off because it had poor taste. It was the one intitled Teenagers, teenagers, teenagers. They called it poor taste becasuse they thought I was trying to be cheap when in fact all I'm trying to do is hire a teenager to do some web design because I think they are sometimes better than pros. They spend more time perfecting their work and do things really creatively. To the moderator who deleted that message, I think you should think about it more carefully.

[SoftWareRevue]

Maybe it was because it was age specific. Which I don't think is legal when it comes to advertising for potential employees.

[Chicken]

This was the reason and I've edited your second post as well.

[netsolutions]

I apologize then because I didn't know it was illegal. Is it illegal in Canada too or just the US?

[cperciva]

IANAL, but I know that in some jurisdictions it is quite legal to state in a job advertisment that the position must be filled by a female, by a "person of colour", or by a young person. Generally speaking it is often legal to restrict a position to a member of a "disadvantaged group", while I don't know of any (western) jurisdictions where the opposite is legal.

PS. Canada is indeed one such jurisdiction where "affirmative action" is entirely legal.

[Alan - Vox]

How can this be illegal? you see it on adverts all the time for the army.

[Jason Ellis]

I'm not a lawyer either, and this does not represent legal advice, but as I understand the law I've addressed some issues below:

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
How can this be illegal? you see it on adverts all the time for the army.

The Army is a government agency and is thus legally exempt from labor laws - as are almost all government agencies.

IANAL, but I know that in some jurisdictions it is quite legal to state in a job advertisment that the position must be filled by a female, by a "person of colour", or by a young person.

This is not true. Affirmative Action allows you to place hiring priority toward a member of a "disadvantaged group", but it does not allow you to deny applications from anyone who is not a member of that group.

Also, it is important to note that "teenager" is not a "disadvantaged group" that is covered by Affirmative Action statutes. You cannot legally discriminate against the elderly, but it is perfectly legal to discriminate against the young. I consider that ridiculous, but it's true.

You cannot specifically seek a teenager to fill a position, and you cannot hire someone based only on the fact they are a teenager (i.e. you must hire the most qualified applicant regardless of their age).

[cperciva]

Jason, note the phrase "in some jurisdictions". I'm not entirely familiar with American law, so you may well be correct there; however I am reasonably familiar with Canadian law and under Canadian law there is no list of qualified disadvantaged groups.

[Alan - Vox]

But you can reject people for being over qualified, there cant be any laws against doing that.

[JayC]

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
But you can reject people for being over qualified, there cant be any laws against doing that.

If you're implying that someone could hire only teens by saying that every adult who applies for a job is "overqualified," you'd be taking chances. Simply saying the reason you hired or fired someone is a reason that is "legal" is a protection against (U.S.) Equal Opportunity lawsuits. What matters isn't what you say, but what patterns your hiring follows. Even if you haven't had enough employees to have established a pattern, you should be concerned about what you've said to applicants (or, concievably, in web forums for that matter), what notes you've written on applications and resumes, etc.

[Chicken]

Well, all we ask is that if you post a job at WHT, you leave it open to everyone. What you do once you receive the applications is your business, and we'll let Federal and State Laws take over from there...

Re: Affimative Action
I'm not a big supporter of affirmitive action, and recently participated in a debate on the issue. While I understand there is a problem, I'm not so certain fixing the problem justifies more discrimination. A whole 'nuther thread, I know...