WotC WotC is hiring Senior Manager for Diversity, equity and inclusion.

[MGibster]

So... what you're saying is I am not wrong, but you insist on attaching the jargon to it? I'm okay with that.

Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of employment discrimination in the United States.

Disparate Impact: These are rules or practices that appear neutral on the surface, but have a disproportionately harmful effect on one group based on membership in a protected class. (Classic American Example: Exams for firefighter and police positions disproportionately eliminated minority applicants and many cities were forced to make changes after being sued.)

Disparate Treatment: This is overt, with rules or practices that deliberate treat people differently based on their membership in a protected class. (Classic American Example: Denying an employee partnership in a firm because you don't believe her behavior is feminine enough.)

 

[MGibster]

Yep. But it’s illegal to to base a hiring decision on if you have been discriminated against. If it wasn’t you could base a hiring decision on not being discriminated against.

Actually, no. I don't think it's illegal to base a hiring decision on whether or not someone has been discriminated against. I think it's a bad business decision but not actually illegal.

 

[FrogReaver]

Actually, no. I don't think it's illegal to base a hiring decision on whether or not someone has been discriminated against. I think it's a bad business decision but not actually illegal.

It leads to disparate impacts. Especially since there is a better alternative - experience.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It leads to disparate impacts. Especially since there is a better alternative - experience.

It can lead to disparate impacts. that doesn’t make it illegal. It just means that you think it will somehow automatically lead to illegal practices.

Personal experience is absolutely relevant to the job, and to many other jobs.

 

[FrogReaver]

Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of employment discrimination in the United States.

Disparate Impact: These are rules or practices that appear neutral on the surface, but have a disproportionately harmful effect on one group based on membership in a protected class. (Classic American Example: Exams for firefighter and police positions disproportionately eliminated minority applicants and many cities were forced to make changes after being sued.)

Disparate Treatment: This is overt, with rules or practices that deliberate treat people differently based on their membership in a protected class. (Classic American Example: Denying an employee partnership in a firm because you don't believe her behavior is feminine enough.)

Just pointing this out -

Exams for a police or fire fighter position were enough to cause a disparate impact. What makes you think hiring someone based on experiences of discrimination would be any different?

 

[MGibster]

It leads to disparate impacts. Especially since there is a better alternative - experience.

The trouble here is that you actually have to wait for evidence of disparate impact before you can act. WotC is hiring one person for this position and it's not possible to measure disparate impact in this case.

 

[FrogReaver]

It can lead to disparate impacts. that doesn’t make it illegal. It just means that you think it will somehow automatically lead to illegal practices.

Personal experience is absolutely relevant to the job, and to many other jobs.

Illegal disparate impacts are a thing. Does this criteria cause disparate impacts for a legally protected group. Yes.

Is this criteria a proven good measure of success in the specified job? No.

Is there an alternative criteria that can be used that doesn’t generate a disparate impact, or not as large of one? Yes - Work experience.

Those are the criteria looked at to determine if something is an illegal disparate impact. This proposal fails on the last 2.

 

[FrogReaver]

The trouble here is that you actually have to wait for evidence of disparate impact before you can act. WotC is hiring one person for this position and it's not possible to measure disparate impact in this case.

Sure. That something can’t be proven illegal now doesn’t mean it wasn’t. It’s easy to see how the ducks fall in a row for this one. If what’s being advocated for here becomes mainstream there will be court cases about it.

 

[MGibster]

The EEOC goes by the 80% rule when it comes to figuring out if there might be disparate impact. You look at the percentage of the most successful group and see if other groups are within 80% of that.


Let's say business is booming and we're hiring a lot of new people to fill our Paper Pusher I positions.

176 African American Applicants 88 Hired Hire Rate = 50%
144 Latino Applicants 36 Hired Hire Rate = 25%
244 Caucasians Apply 140 Hired Hire Rate = 57%

The most successful group here are Caucasians.

Caucasians Percent Hired: 57%
Latinos Percent Hired: 25% Divide: 25/57 Adverse Impact: Yes, less than 80%
A. Americans Percent Hired: 50% Divide: 50/57 Adverse Impact: No, more than 80%

You can't really claim disparate impact based on a single position that's only had one person in it.

 

[Wishbone]

I imagine the way someone's personal story of being discriminated against could enter the conversation would be in answer to basic interview questions like, "Tell me about a time you solved a problem."