The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EOOC) is trying to shut down high school and college job fairs. They claim that these job fairs discriminate based on age, and are unfair – and therefore need to be shut down across the nation.
EEOC the is responsible for policing discrimination in the workforce, and has claimed that the businesses that recruit young people for entry level positions violate the age discrimination laws. Their argument is based off of the legal principle of “disparate impact,” in which a difference in outcome in the marketplace are always seen as a result of hidden discrimination and bigotry. For example, under the logic of “disparate impact,” public urination was decriminalized in New York City because minorities were the most frequently busted.
If the EOOC is successful in changing the law, it would allow plaintiffs to allege any discrimination if completely fair, equitable and equal standards for hiring or promotion simply happen to result in fewer people of a protected class (race, age, gender, etc.) becoming hired or promoted. It seems like, “disparate impact” is the liberal entitlement mentality turned loose on our legal system.
seeks to put an end to the college and high school job fairs by putting forward the age discriminating law and enforcing it during the recruitment processes even though its own program of recruiting is aimed at the recent graduates only as per the latest report.
In its statement in a legal brief filed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, EEOC said, “RJR and its recruiting agents relied on the resume guidelines under which RJR hired almost exclusively younger individuals to fill [its] positions … The Commission has long interpreted this language to authorize disparate-impact-based challenges to practices adversely affecting applicants.”
However, the court rejected that argument, stating that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act only applies to current, rather than all prospective employees.
The Manhattan Institute, in a white paper, said that the agency’s targeting of the recruitment misinterprets Congress’s intent for such a legislation, which was originally designed to protect seniors that are already in the work force from being fired and replaced by younger and efficient workers, rather than preventing companies from recruiting young people. The white paper also criticized the agency for attempting to expand its own power without seeking input from all the employers, legal analysts, or other groups that may get affected by the ruling.
“The EEOC has never sought any public comment, engaged in any rulemaking, or promulgated any other public guidance addressing whether the text of [the Act] can be read to include ‘applicants for employment,'” said the paper. “Allowing age-based disparate-impact hiring claims would declare open season on many hiring practices that are entirely common and entirely benign, thus imposing far greater costs on employers for the sake of far fewer meritorious claims.”
Author of the study, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a George Washington University professor, and former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, issued this warning. “As long as the agency claims the power to prosecute companies over their recruitment practices, it will only hinder job opportunities for entry-level workers. The prospect of running afoul the EEOC may lead cautious employers to avoid seeking out young people … For the EEOC to say recruiters shouldn’t come to campuses is just ludicrous.”
