Nobody is saying that number 1 is true. I've said more than once that there are exceptions to the general rule. Number 2 is just plain wrong. There's tons of evidence. It just hasn't been put into a study doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That tens of thousands of businesses worldwide all have observed that effect and as a result toss sloppy resumes is itself evidence.
Well, you've certainly implied you think #1 is true, because you keep referring only to 'sloppy resumes', and point to a source noting many executives reject resumes with 1-2 typos as your supporting evidence that others do it too. Perhaps not your intention, but it does make it seem like you associate 1-2 typos with 'sloppy'.
At the risk of seeing too many trees for the forest, when I think of a sloppy resume, I'm picturing one with sections missing, little-to-no supporting/clarifying details (job duties, education topics, etc.), irrelevant text, and even (as I have seen) bits of text that are obviously from a fill-in-the-blanks resume writer with the blanks and instructions left in. I can definitely see something like that going in the circular file, because it's just a headache trying to even figure out if the needed qualifications are present.
As for there being "tons of evidence" for number 2 being wrong, I'd submit there isn't. There's tons of evidence business reject sloppy resumes, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's because they think the worker would have sloppy work habits; it could just as easily be that they were rejected because the business couldn't find any references to all the job qualifications (as you say, there is a limited time they can spend on each resume; they don't have time to interpret "creative" ones).
There's also the (growing?) fact that especially in larger organizations, a dedicated HR unit handles initial resume winnowing, and they may not have the technical understanding of a job position to make safe assumptions, so they can only work off a checklist, and a sloppy resume is less likely to have the proper keywords in the right places (anecdotally, a co-worker of mine got screened out of a competition because he didn't explicitly say that he worked on WindowsXP every day - despite the fact that he was a software developer with our organization for the previous three years and all we used was WindowsXP). This sort of scenario makes no inference on the quality of the applicant or their work habits.
In fact, given the disturbingly litigious world that is employment (ie, the same one where many places won't even give more of a reference than "Yes, Person worked here from Date to Date"), the far more likely reason they pitch sloppy resumes is the one that doesn't risk casting aspersions on the applicant (ie, it's far safer to say "We couldn't find the stuff we wanted on your resume" than "You'd be a pretty sloppy employee").
I don't. Mistakes on resumes are a general indicator of sloppiness. I'm not putting personal reasons over the business interests at all. I am in fact doing the opposite.
OK, but earlier...
That doesn't show racial bias. It shows name bias. I dislike names like Shaniqua and other similar names and would not call back resumes with names like that. I also dislike Hawaiian sounding names which are often given to white people, or Russian names which belong overwhelmingly to white people. Give me names like Robin, Rhonda, George, James and so on, but put on those resumes the race of the individual and you will find no racial bias at all.
Emphasis mine.
That decidedly sounds like personal reasons being put over business reasons.
Mayhaps the greater world is more imaginative than me, but I cannot think of a single, non-silly reason a person's name would ever be a relevant business consideration (silly reasons including, but not exclusive too, Dewey and Cheatum finding the partner with the perfect lastname for their law practice).
No. I scrutinized all of the resumes that I've looked over, regardless of name. Sloppiness is not name based
I'll have to take your word for that.
My conclusion came about because we first started talking about names, and how you wouldn't call certain ones back (without mentioning whether they were qualified or not), and when told about potential legal action against you, you defended yourself by bringing up the idea of sloppy resumes and how you'd probably find enough mistakes on them to justify winnowing them out.
It just seems odd to even consider a person's name at all. If there are problems with a resume, that's enough justification right there. If there aren't problems, how does a name cause a problem?
Her evidence would be very weak. She has no way to know if I had much stronger resumes the first time around, but not the second time around. She has no way to know if I had fewer positions available than qualified resumes. There are more reasons than just name for what she experienced to be true.
I would submit that she would have enough evidence for a prima facie case, which would mean it'd be enough to go to trial, at which point, it'd be on you to prove you had stronger resumes before, or fewer positions, or what have you.
Note, I am not a lawyer. I haven't even stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. This is, in fact, the first time I've ever typed 'prima facie', and I'm quite certain I'm making some gross misconceptions about the American legal system. But I like reading [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]'s posts about law
