"This opportunity is open to male candidates only." (job, claim)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, never mind. You didn't actually include "all of that information" in your original posting, hence all the questions that led you to give more details.
If it were a male-only private school, I would have included that in the original posting. Don't blame me because you assumed wrong.
Ahem.
Quote:
I belong to a number of networking groups and receive daily emails from them.
A job came through today that stated "This opportunity is open to male candidates only."
I assumed the responsibilities of the job might require a male candidate (resident hall director for a male dorm, etc.) But the responsibilities were very generic and did not provide any reasoning for male candidates only.
I am a bit taken aback by the statement since I thought it would be illegal to discriminate based on gender. I have seen many jobs overseas, especially in the Middle East, that state what gender, age and attractiveness level a candidate should be. But I have never seen such a blatant example of sex discrimination in a US job announcement.
Has anyone else seen statements like this for US jobs?
Do you see anything about a school of any sort in the above?
No, your OP said NOTHING about the job posting being a school at all. You just said "generic responsibilities." That could be anything (You mention a dorm director as a generic example of a gender-based job, not that it was part of the job announcement). You got ppl all het up about possible 'sex discrim', THEN popped out with the 'faith-based' nugget.
Which anyone with a functioning synapse knows that that could have gender considerations.
OK, so maybe its a boys-only school. THEN you pop out with 'but its co-ed!' line.
Gotcha. I don't think you are as 'taken aback' as you claim to be.
Clearly, putting as much info as possible in the initial post would have avoided some subsequent questions about it.
It's apparent the OP had more info than originally provided -- RELEVANT info that would have been helpful to those wishing to respond.
If the employer has 15 or more employees, it is subject to Title VIi law. Under Title VII religious organizations are exempt from the prohibition against religious discrimination. See the EEOC Q & A on this. So religious organizations don't get passes on gender discrimination. All employers have available to them a BFOQ defense (stands for bona fide occupation qualification). This defense allows an employer to hire based on gender, but the exception is a very narrow one and difficult for employers to use successfully. From what you have shown so far, I doubt the defense applies, but I bet the employer would try to use it if a challenge to the hiring practice arose.
It's not uncommon in conservative, evangelical workplaces like churches or schools to want to hire specifically men in teaching or leadership roles. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying it is what it is. I've heard good arguments for this issue from both sides of the issue. My feeling is if you do not like the stance that a particular religious organization has, then do not attend or support them. There is always another group that you could support.
If this organization is a school and you don't support what they are doing, simply have your child attend a different school.
If the employer has 15 or more employees, it is subject to Title VIi law. Under Title VII religious organizations are exempt from the prohibition against religious discrimination. See the EEOC Q & A on this. So religious organizations don't get passes on gender discrimination. All employers have available to them a BFOQ defense (stands for bona fide occupation qualification). This defense allows an employer to hire based on gender, but the exception is a very narrow one and difficult for employers to use successfully. From what you have shown so far, I doubt the defense applies, but I bet the employer would try to use it if a challenge to the hiring practice arose.
Excellent post! The one point I might add is that religious institutions are exempt from federal civil rights laws when it comes to their ministerial staffs (due to the first amendment). This exception does not apply to non-ministerial positions. How much you want to bet they will claim that this person is a minister?
Excellent post! The one point I might add is that religious institutions are exempt from federal civil rights laws when it comes to their ministerial staffs (due to the first amendment). This exception does not apply to non-ministerial positions. How much you want to bet they will claim that this person is a minister?
When the heat is on, never be surprised by the defenses that can get cooked up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
