Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Resumes including 'they/them' pronouns are more likely to be overlooked, new report finds https://t.co/kpKLPTknOu

— CNBC (@CNBC) July 5, 2023

&ct=g

---

In other news, liberals don't mind overlooking asian applicants to Ivy League colleges.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Quote:

---

So on what basis would this be illegal?

---

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Pronouns listed on a resume are an indicator of sex or gender and if that is the basis of the rejection, it could be construed as discrimination on the basis of sex or gender under Title VII.

That being said, there are responsibilities on both side of the resume:

• It is the potential employer's responsibility not to discriminate; and
• it is the applicant's responsibility to limit the disclosure of any information that could result in discrimination.

This is one of the reasons many employers, including the federal government, tell applicants up-front that any application or resume that includes a photo of the applicant will be disqualified from consideration.

---

If you toss resumes for listing personal pronouns without regard to what sex or gender they indicate, how would that be discrimination based on sex or gender?

It might arguably be discrimination based on whether you lean left or right, but is either a protected class?

One can hire preferentially on the basis of non-protected classes, can't you? For example, I don't believe that there is anything illegal if you only considered military veterans with an honorable discharge for the job.

It seems reasonable to think that tossing out resumes listing pronouns would be similar to discriminating on the basis of politics. But that politics is not generally protected. Except from some cities who have enacted their own ordinances, you are free to consider politics when hiring.

Imagine the results if it was illegal to discriminate because of politics. The Democratic Party could not discriminate against Republicans or other non-Democrats applying for jobs and the Republican party could not discriminate against Democrats or other non-Republicans applying for jobs.

The bigger question is what about those who don't list their pronouns, fly under the radar in the hiring process, are hired, and then go nuts about their pronouns?

Too much drama in the future is all i can Invision when i see anyone list "thier pronouns" on a resume.

Quote:

---

One can hire preferentially on the basis of non-protected classes, can't you? For example, I don't believe that there is anything illegal if you only considered military veterans with an honorable discharge for the job.

---

Generally speaking yes. But following the military vets preferred part, there needs to be the standard EEOC language. Equal Opportunity Employer. No race nor gender or...whatever it says now. IDK nor do I want to know anymore.

Also - sexuality or preference is not a protected class by the words of the constitution or the civil rights act, even though "progressives" try hard to make us believe it is.

Below are the categories that you are prohibited from discrimination:
Race
Age
Color
Religion/faith
Sex
National origin or ancestry
Disability
Genetic information
Citizenship
Veteran status

Quote:

---

If you toss resumes for listing personal pronouns without regard to what sex or gender they indicate, how would that be discrimination based on sex or gender?

---

I said it *could* be construed as discrimination. There are a lot of variables in real-world situations that could send it one way or another. Dealing with things that touch protected characteristics can be a real minefield.

If I had a client who wanted to toss every resume with pronouns, I would advise them to add a provision of their HR policies that specifies all applications that make direct references or declarations of the gender identity or gender expression of the applicant are to be disqualified and include a statement to that effect in the application instructions. Such a policy would then have to be enforced without exception.

Quote:

---

Also - sexuality or preference is not a protected class by the words of the constitution or the civil rights act, even though "progressives" try hard to make us believe it is.

---

Incorrect.

Sexual orientation is, in fact, protected under Title VII.

Quote:

---

The bigger question is what about those who don't list their pronouns, fly under the radar in the hiring process, are hired, and then go nuts about their pronouns?

---

In those infrequent times when I advise applicants, I tell them to sanitize resumes and apps for anything that could be used to discriminate unless it's 100% necessary for them to get the job - Because it's much easier to not hire someone for a discriminatory reason than it is to fire them.

This is also why I advise employers to develop and enforce a company code of conduct that can act as a catch-all for employee shenanigans.

Are recent college student being socially manipulated to put this on their resume by whoever it is that is helping them with resumes?

I know a young lady (recent college grad) that sent me her resume and in both her resume and email it had "she/her." She said "I thought that is what everyone does now?" She was completely oblivious to the issue of this wierd gender debate.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Quote:

---

If you toss resumes for listing personal pronouns without regard to what sex or gender they indicate, how would that be discrimination based on sex or gender?

---

I said it *could* be construed as discrimination. There are a lot of variables in real-world situations that could send it one way or another. Dealing with things that touch protected characteristics can be a real minefield.

If I had a client who wanted to toss every resume with pronouns, I would advise them to add a provision of their HR policies that specifies all applications that make direct references or declarations of the gender identity or gender expression of the applicant are to be disqualified and include a statement to that effect in the application instructions. Such a policy would then have to be enforced without exception.

---

If I had a client who wanted to toss every resume with pronouns, I would advise him or her to do so but keep his or her mouth shut about it. The more they put in writing, trying to cover every situation, the more likely they are to say something that someone can use against them somewhere down the road. Nobody needs to know they are tossing all resumes with pronouns.

Quote:

---

I would advise him or her to do so but keep his or her mouth shut about it.

---

As I mentioned previously, this is usually my first piece of advice.

I am not in position to say I would "overlook" anyone using "pronouns" when it comes to recruiting or resumes, as I am not in HR.

However, I can tell you when someone has the him/her/she/her voluntarily in their profile, in my area of employ, that is a "whatever" and you better bring your A game, because the folks that matter don't care, and you have just dropped what you think is an "exemption card" into a conversation that people that exist only in merit and don't care for bringing attention to yourself. They expect you to perform as a team, and self advertisement does nothing but bring attention to an individual. Teams don't need that.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Also - sexuality or preference is not a protected class by the words of the constitution or the civil rights act, even though "progressives" try hard to make us believe it is.

Below are the categories that you are prohibited from discrimination:
Race
Age
Color
Religion/faith
Sex
National origin or ancestry
Disability
Genetic information
Citizenship
Veteran status

---

Do you know who can legally discriminate based on age and gender?

Insurance companies.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Using pronouns should rate the same as colored hair. You know they are left, and likely stir fried crazy. Individuals that are gung-ho self identifiers are the worst.

Stay far away.

---

Pronouns also rate the same as brightly colored animals in nature !!!

If the feds can reject applicants because they include photo, then I can reject an applicant because they include pronouns; for the same reason.

taxpreparer said:

---

If the feds can reject applicants because they include photo, then I can reject an applicant because they include pronouns; for the same reason.

---

Yes, and I've said as much in this thread, with the caveat that you just have to be consistent about it. The moment you make one exception, your protection starts to evaporate.

My job is to help organizations reduce their risk, which means helping them see the broader context and implications of personnel-related actions, rather than just the one narrow piece they want to see. These sorts of issues are why we see a rise in HR departments preparing "double blind" applications for hiring managers that have any information that could be an indicator of race, ethnicity, gender, economic status, etc. stripped out.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Ryan the Temp said:

---

JamesPShelley said:

---

"I found someone more qualified to fill the position. Thank you for applying. Best wishes on your pursuits".

Easy. Gravy. No liability.

---

This is the way, as long as the person you hire is, in fact, more qualified.

---

"Qualifications" are subjective. There is always someone more qualified

---

Often, but not always. Good thing is, rejected applicants typically never know if it's a true statement and I'm not aware of any employment lawyer anywhere who will take a discrimination case on contingency.

---

I practice employment law. Plenty will for a discharge case. But a failure to hire? Much harder to prove.

Interesting. With as difficult as discrimination can be to prove, I'm surprised by that. Is it correct to guess that contingency representation mostly occurs in clear-cut cases of flagrant discrimination?

On an aside, I'm a non-attorney member of the employment law section of the ABA. Any good sites you recommend for continuing education? Some of the ones I subscribe to are getting kind of stale.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Interesting. With as difficult as discrimination can be to prove, I'm surprised by that. Is it correct to guess that contingency representation mostly occurs in clear-cut cases of flagrant discrimination?

---

Most cases are not clear cut. You file a Texas Labor Code case, where you cannot remove to federal court for federal question jurisdiction since suing under the TCHRA, in Travis, Harris or Dallas County, you are very likely to have a very liberal judge who will not grant summary judgment. So it is expensive to defend and you're at the whim of a hostile judge and a diverse jury venire. Sure you probably can win on appeal, but again, expensive.

So a lot of employers will pay a decent amount to avoid costs of defense.

We have a very poor judiciary, IMO, in the large Texas counties. The last few rounds of elections we lost a lot of good and reasonable democrat judges because if you are white or a male, you cannot win a Democrat primary in these counties. Even poor Steven Kirkland, who is gay, got primaried because he is white and a male.

So now we have a lot of black women judges who went to TSU, who are very liberal, not very bright, and who will never leave their judicial positions because in private practice they cannot earn what they make as judges. It's pretty damn bad.

Quote:

---

We have a very poor judiciary, IMO, in the large Texas counties. The last few rounds of elections we lost a lot of good and reasonable democrat judges because if you are white or a male, you cannot win a Democrat primary in these counties. Even poor Steven Kirkland, who is gay, got primaried because he is white and a male.

So now we have a lot of black women judges who went to TSU, who are very liberal, not very bright, and who will never leave their judicial positions because in private practice they cannot earn what they make as judges. It's pretty damn bad.

---

Steve is a good friend. I vote against Elaine Palmer every single time, no matter who her opponent is. I usually look at the BGM mailers to figure out who else to vote against.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

Quote:

---

We have a very poor judiciary, IMO, in the large Texas counties. The last few rounds of elections we lost a lot of good and reasonable democrat judges because if you are white or a male, you cannot win a Democrat primary in these counties. Even poor Steven Kirkland, who is gay, got primaried because he is white and a male.

So now we have a lot of black women judges who went to TSU, who are very liberal, not very bright, and who will never leave their judicial positions because in private practice they cannot earn what they make as judges. It's pretty damn bad.

---

Steve is a good friend. I vote against Elaine Palmer every single time, no matter who her opponent is. I usually look at the BGM mailers to figure out who else to vote against.

---

He was a good judge. Smart, fair, and he worked hard.