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

[FrogReaver]

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.

I don’t disagree but you are coming in on the tail end of this. It was already conceded that the policy of taking into account personal discrimination in the hiring decision would be good because it would have the impact of leading to less white male hires.

That’s a concession that it will cause a disparate impact. The only further parts I need to show are that it would be an illegal one.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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."

Exactly. Or, "How do you understand the issue of inclusion in fiction, and why it matters to people?" which would be directly relevant to the specific job in question.

 

[Eltab]

Speaking as someone in Great Britain, I would say job interviews here boil down to who can roll highest in Deception?

I find the US hiring process to be a combination of Maze and Guards and Wards.

 

[seebs]

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

I would suggest that perhaps "has been discriminated against" is experience. The point of experience is that having experiences leads to you understanding things differently than if you haven't had those experiences. Not all experience relevant to a job is "work" experience.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would suggest that perhaps "has been discriminated against" is experience. The point of experience is that having experiences leads to you understanding things differently than if you haven't had those experiences. Not all experience relevant to a job is "work" experience.

Exactly. Just like when selling car parts, while my company values customer service more highly, car knowledge and experience is also valued, even though you don’t need to have ever worked on a car to sell parts. Just as a very simple example.

 

[FrogReaver]

Exactly. Just like when selling car parts, while my company values customer service more highly, car knowledge and experience is also valued, even though you don’t need to have ever worked on a car to sell parts. Just as a very simple example.

Just like firefighters used to take exams to become one - that was deemed illegal due to the disparate impact it causes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Except you cannot prove or even strongly argue for disparate impact when one person is hired, there is no public announcement of specific criteria, and a wide range of candidates have roughly the same qualifications on paper.

You’re speculating about an illegal act based on forum posters hoping that they will take personal experience into account.

And yes, personal experience is relevant to hiring.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Just like firefighters used to take exams to become one - that was deemed illegal due to the disparate impact it causes.

Not like cases.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except you cannot prove or even strongly argue for disparate impact when one person is hired, there is no public announcement of specific criteria, and a wide range of candidates have roughly the same qualifications on paper.

You’re speculating about an illegal act based on forum posters hoping that they will take personal experience into account.

And yes, personal experience is relevant to hiring.

That disparate impact would happen was conceded in this discussion already. No need to prove something that’s been conceded.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not like cases.

Not exactly no. But similar. You want a criteria to be considered for a different job that’s a heck of a lot worse indicator about performance than a relevant exam would be while having said criteria exclude nearly every straight white male. It’s actually 10x worse than the firefighter exam example.