Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

You haven't provided one yet.

Yes I have. Not calling someone back because they show sloppy work habits is a very good reason.

No.

But using grammar/spelling errors as a primary winnowing tool for jobs that don't require excellence in those areas- IOW, not journalism, editing, PR, etc. type jobs- DOES expose you to ADR claims by dyslexics because it isn't a BFOQ.

Sorry, but sloppy work is sloppy work and that applies to every job. If they can't even get a one page document that they have tons of time to work on right, how can I trust them to get the job right? I can't. Before they ever get to an interview they have clearly demonstrated that they can't be trusted to do the work correctly.

That the rejected applications all have ethnic names and the accepted ones don't, despite having similar errors, will damn you.

That's just false. I've said repeatedly that there are lots of non-ethnic names I dislike as well.

Which is it: "I would never call in and interview someone of any race who made spelling and/or grammatical errors in the resume." or the above statement?

Both can't be true.

Sure they can. I would never call in and interview anyone of any race who made those errors. That's a conscious decision and requires active interpretation. Making a mistake and not seeing one of those errors means that when I looked at that document, it was error free as far as I knew, so as far as I knew, when I called that person in I was calling in someone who made no mistakes.

 

[Maxperson]

That isn't what I'm saying. I know it sounds like semantics, but they're not dropping you because you are refusing to admit wrongdoing. They are dropping you because you are refusing to accept the settlement negotiated for by the counsel they provided by contract. IOW, they have done their job. The fact that the REASON for your rejection of the settlement is your desire to not admit wrongdoing (whether you are correct or not) is immaterial as long as they have represented you to the best of their ability.

And it's 100% legal. In fact, it's a pretty standard clause in liability insurance contracts.

They are obligated to take care of me, not negotiate something that would require me to admit guilt over something I didn't do or drop me. That's clearly not representing me to the best of their ability, since they can do better. It's still bad faith.

So, if the main major demand of the other party in a settlement negotiation is that you publicly admit and apologize, you will have a devil of a time getting a settlement agreement offer that doesn't include that.

It's not my fault if the other side refuses to settle. A proper defense doesn't require me to admit guilt for something I didn't do.

If it is the case that all the offers include such a condition, and the InsCo agrees and wants to settle, as their client you then have a decision to make- approve the settlement with the term you dislike or return to the court action. If you reject the settlement, they no longer have to represent you in this case.

Even if you actually did nothing wrong. Seen it more than once.

I'm pretty sure I could find an attorney willing to take my case and sue the insurance company for bad faith. Especially since in California, bad faith cases are attorneys' fees cases. It's not at all reasonable to require the insured to admit guilt for something he didn't do via the threat to withdraw if he doesn't. That's coercive behavior and insurance companies engaging in coercive and abusive behavior to settle a claim is grounds for a bad faith claim. Insurance companies are deathly afraid of bad faith. Just saying those words to them prods them into action like there's no tomorrow.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes I have. Not calling someone back because they show sloppy work habits is a very good reason.

Again, the presence of typos and grammatical errors in job application documents is not going to be considered a BFOQ for most jobs. Copy editors, journalists? Yes. Truck driver, accountant, HR manager? Not so much.

From a set of HR guidelines:

In determining whether a discriminatory policy constitutes a BFOQ, you must first look at the particular job and what it requires. You must then look at the discriminatory policy and determine if it's necessary to performing the job. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration has a rule that airline pilots may not serve as captains after reaching age 60. That rule is obviously based on the probability that a pilot's skills have deteriorated with age and that the safety of the crew and passengers depends most heavily on the captain. The rule pertains only to the position of captain and doesn't prevent pilots 60 years of age or older from serving as flight engineers because age isn't a BFOQ for that position.

In claiming the BFOQ defense, the employer has the burden of proving the discriminatory policy is a valid BFOQ. You must demonstrate "plainly and unmistakably" that your discriminatory employment practice meets the terms and spirit of the Title VII exception. In other words, you must demonstrate that a discriminatory practice is reasonably related to an essential operation of your business. There is no requirement that formal studies be conducted to ascertain the need for a BFOQ. Such a qualification can be demonstrated through expert witnesses, empirical data, or just plain common sense.

As for this:

Sorry, but sloppy work is sloppy work and that applies to every job. If they can't even get a one page document that they have tons of time to work on right, how can I trust them to get the job right? I can't. Before they ever get to an interview they have clearly demonstrated that they can't be trusted to do the work correctly.

See above.

One of my dyslexic cousins is a truck driver. He has trouble filling out forms, and the positions he is applying for generally do not require actual resumes, just references.

He does have to do paperwork, but in general, all he is doing is checking off squares in tick-boxes on forms, then dating & signing his name.

Perfect grammar & mistake free writing are not BFOQs for jobs in his field. If you insisted they were in a discrimination case regarding a job like his, you'd lose.

That's just false. I've said repeatedly that there are lots of non-ethnic names I dislike as well.

If you were in a region where there were a lot of people named Shaniqua, and only 60% were black, you'd lose a discrimination suit if you were found to be tossing all Shaniquas from the applicant pool, regardless of whomever else you are interviewing or not. This is because your "no Shaniquas" policy has a disperate impact on black people.

Sure they can. I would never call in and interview anyone of any race who made those errors. That's a conscious decision and requires active interpretation. Making a mistake and not seeing one of those errors means that when I looked at that document, it was error free as far as I knew, so as far as I knew, when I called that person in I was calling in someone who made no mistakes.

No, this absolutist statement:

I would never call in and interview someone of any race who made spelling and/or grammatical errors in the resume.

And this depiction of human fallibility:

No. Imperfection does not invalidate my methods. It just shows that I'm human, something every person on the jury can understand. I doubt there's a single person who alive who has never had some method for doing something and who also also never made some mistakes in execution.

...cannot both be true.

If you claim to be human and fallible, the first statement cannot be true. If you try to assert otherwise, you are using the word "never" in an utterly imprecise manner. It's the same kind of grammatical error- linguistic imprecision- as when many people use "literally" thusly:

[video=youtube;E8S3M2Ynhlw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8S3M2Ynhlw&sns=em[/video]

An additional observation: your repeated assertion that all applicant documents by Shaniquas et alia will have flaws of some kind that will provide you safe harbor in a lawsuit is a very dangerous assumption.

 

[Umbran]

If you claim to be human and fallible, the first statement cannot be true.

He can claim it - if he admits he would not hire himself.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They are obligated to take care of me, not negotiate something that would require me to admit guilt over something I didn't do or drop me. That's clearly not representing me to the best of their ability, since they can do better. It's still bad faith.

An attorney's job isn't to get you your ideal desired result. It is to represent you to the best of his abilities. If you get your ideal desired result, great! But not getting it is not a sign of bad faith.

And because there is a- presumably- equally motivated and skilled attorney on the other side of the negotiation, odds are high that you will not get everything you want.

If the other side in a discrimination suit gets negotiated down from a monetary settlement to a public apology, etc., you will have a hard time convincing anyone that your attorney acted in bad faith.

Here's the thing: attorneys get to drop clients for all kinds of reasons. In most cases, though, dropping a client in the middle of a case that is actually being argued before a judge requires the judge's approval.

But in a liability coverage policy in which your InsCo is providing you with legal representation, part of the agreement defines when they can drop you without such approval. As it is part of that contract you signed, you will be expected to have read it and agreed to it.

And one such condition is when you decide to proceed to court when the provided attorney has successfully negotiated a settlement.

It's not my fault if the other side refuses to settle. A proper defense doesn't require me to admit guilt for something I didn't do.

The only person you can control is yourself. And not all settlement negotiations end in signed agreements. Agreement requires mutual assent. Where it is absent, assigning "fault" is a difficult task at best.

If the opposed party's strongest demand is a public apology (as described before), you might not be able to find a mutually agreeable settlement. In that case, you have an impasse.

But reaching an impasse is not the result of the efforts of the attorneys representing the parties, it is the result of the decisions of the parties themselves.

In addition, that isn't the definition of "a proper defense." Ideally, no you wouldn't, but we don't live in an ideal world.

A classic example is the nolo contendere plea in criminal cases. Pleading nolo contendere means that you are not pleading guilty, but are admitting that the pattern of facts presented is sufficient to support a conviction. If you go nolo, it is functionally very similar to a guilty plea, and counts as a conviction, but cannot usually be used against you in civil courts.

Which is why you might plead nolo, even if you did nothing wrong.

I'm pretty sure I could find an attorney willing to take my case and sue the insurance company for bad faith. Especially since in California, bad faith cases are attorneys' fees cases. It's not at all reasonable to require the insured to admit guilt for something he didn't do via the threat to withdraw if he doesn't. That's coercive behavior and insurance companies engaging in coercive and abusive behavior to settle a claim is grounds for a bad faith claim. Insurance companies are deathly afraid of bad faith. Just saying those words to them prods them into action like there's no tomorrow.

See above- it is highly unlikely that such a case would proceed, since the conditions to the contract you signed allows them to do exactly what you're objecting to.

In addition, be careful what you wish for. If you sue an attorney for malpractice, he is permitted by law to use information normally covered by attorney-client privilege to defend himself, if he needs to. If the malpractice claim you are making is that he bargained in bad faith, he will do exactly that! because that is the only possible way he will be able to prove he did his job properly.

A bit of free advice: if you ever find yourself as a business owner or part of a HR department, you might want to invest a few hundred in taking one or more of the live online business or employment law courses offered by the National Business Institute. I specify "live" because those include Q&A sessions, and you could raise these same issues with an experienced specialist in this field.

http://www.nbi-sems.com

You might not get the answers you want, but you will get the ones you need.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He can claim it - if he admits he would not hire himself.

Not just would not hire- would not even interview.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, the presence of typos and grammatical errors in job application documents is not going to be considered a BFOQ for most jobs. Copy editors, journalists? Yes. Truck driver, accountant, HR manager? Not so much.

Name one job for which sloppy work is a pre-requisite. If a truck driver turns in a sloppy resume, he's going to be a sloppy truck driver worker. If an accountant or HR manager turns in a sloppy resume, the same goes. You can't trust someone who can't get a resume right to get work right. When you have people who get the resume right, you call them, assuming they are qualified. Managers don't have time to interview everyone, so they have to eliminate lots and lots of resumes.

From a set of HR guidelines:

It would be essential to have a bunch of workers who did not have sloppy/lazy work habits.

An additional observation: your repeated assertion that all applicant documents by Shaniquas et alia will have flaws of some kind that will provide you safe harbor in a lawsuit is a very dangerous assumption.

I didn't make that assertion. I said many would have errors. For the rest, if I'm hiring all races equally, and interviewing all races equally, I don't have to call back every single qualified applicant. There just isn't time in a day to bring them all in for interviews. So long as I'm not calling back less qualified people over her, there's no discrimination in calling back as many as I need to and no more than that.

 

[Maxperson]

He can claim it - if he admits he would not hire himself.

I take far less care with my spelling and grammar when I post than with my resume and work

 

[Maxperson]

Just as an FYI. Notice something I've been talking about that is on those lists?

http://www.business2community.com/human-resources/top-10-reasons-resume-wont-get-job-01046981

http://www.businessinsider.com/4-reasons-resumes-are-rejected-2014-9

http://content.wisestep.com/top-reasons-why-your-resume-was-rejected/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2014/08/13/six-good-reasons-to-reject-a-resume/

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Name one job for which sloppy work is a pre-requisite.

There isn't. However, since there is no connection between excellent grammatical skills and most jobs, it won't be considered a BFOQ for most jobs. Acting as if it you think it is will just be a lawsuit waits to happen.

If a truck driver turns in a sloppy resume, he's going to be a sloppy truck driver worker.

That is an unfounded assertion. My cousin has been driving trucks for more than a decade- his record is spotless.

If an accountant or HR manager turns in a sloppy resume, the same goes. You can't trust someone who can't get a resume right to get work right. When you have people who get the resume right, you call them, assuming they are qualified. Managers don't have time to interview everyone, so they have to eliminate lots and lots of resumes.

You might find something like this helpful:
http://www.dhr.idaho.gov/PDF documents/Flowchart/Conducting a Lawful Employment Interview.pdf#page3

Or check with the EEOC itself.

When you systematically start using criteria unrelated to the open job position as a primary winnowing tool, you're simply asking for trouble.

It would be essential to have a bunch of workers who did not have sloppy/lazy work habits.

Conflating grammatical errors with sloppiness or laziness is itself lazy thinking. As I pointed out, dyslexia is a condition protected under the ADA.

I didn't make that assertion. I said many would have errors. For the rest, if I'm hiring all races equally, and interviewing all races equally, I don't have to call back every single qualified applicant.

Yeah, you pretty much have.

It has to get past the the very, very reasonable and valid other reasons for not calling those people back.

What I would have is evidence showing very valid reasons for not calling those black people.

(Edit)

Lots of them would be disqualified from being called simply on spelling and grammar. If they can't get the one page resume right after having had weeks to months to work on it, they won't be able to get the job right.

(Edit)

That's all fine and good, but I would be able to show valid reasons for each denial. I can also see qualifications, set up of the resume, grammar, spelling, and so on. There is lots to judge with a resume that doesn't include names. I would never call in and interview someone of any race who made spelling and/or grammatical errors in the resume.

No, you don't have to call back every qualified applicant. However, your professed bias against certain names begs the question of whether your interviewing practices are, in fact, non-discriminatory.

There just isn't time in a day to bring them all in for interviews.

True.

However, even with those sites you subsequently posted, my position remains unchanged: using typos as a primary- read that as "pre-interview"- disqualifier for all jobs is playing with fire.

There are all kinds of long-standing business practices out there that would not withstand a legal challenge- unenforceable contract clauses, clauses that don't mean what their drafters think they do, etc.

They've survived because their validity hasn't been challenged. Legal "scarecrows", if you will.