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.
You wouldn't want to work for a boss like that. I was about to write a long-winded response about freedoms and feeling acceptance from others of those freedoms. But basically, bosses shouldn't bring their own beliefs into the workplace, especially if it isn't a religious-based organization.
I would definitely encourage you to report this to the EEOC, and also consider reporting it to the parent company of this franchisee.
There is no legitimate basis for asking these questions - the fact that it's not illegal per se doesn't change the fact that it's not a job-related question. I think that both the EEOC and the parent company would be very interested to find out that this is happening.
It's illegal and crappy. Certainly doesn't sound like anyone I'd want to work for anyway.
That said, I don't know any professional woman who has not been asked an illegal question at an interview at some point. Every single one I have asked has said they've been asked about kids, husbands, or the like. It still happens every day.
I guess you need the job, but I wouldn't want to work there. That's when he's on his best behavior. He would be worse, once you worked there. Constant put-downs, condescending, insisting on speaking with your husband about your work schedule, lower raises than the men (that is still legal).
I would consider making a complaint to the EEOC...if you don't want the job.
I don’t need the job (I have one) but I was exploring my options and I was definitely excited about it. Of course I wouldn’t except it now if it was offered to me, but I'm also glad I saw the true colors of the owner now rather than later!
Technically, it's not illegal to ask if someone goes to church in a job interview. It is illegal to hire or not hire them based on the answer to that question.
Correct. It is not illegal to ask personal questions, however it is illegal to discriminate based upon your answer. This interviewer was obviously better suited to taking out the trash than interviewing potential new hires. The fact that a coworker seemingly knew he was out of order tells me the company is not one I’d ever work for. In the future if this happens again, I would simply respond that my personal life is off limits for the purpose of this interview. If they have a problem with that, you do not want to work there.
If the potential employee's religious beliefs and practices place an undue hardship on the employer do you think he should have to hire them?
Let's say they observe the sabbath but the other three people they'll be working with have to work weekends. Is this fair to their co-workers and the employer? Let's say they need to pray at certain times of the day and those are the busiest times of the day, so someone has to work alone. Is this fair to the employer or their co-workers? Will the co-workers file hostile workplace claims?
I don't think employers with a small number of employees have to make accommodations for religious beliefs and practices.
I'm not sure this employer was asking because he would prefer her to GO to a certain church, it may have been so that they could know what to expect if she was hired. I've also heard a co-worker say they can't do overtime because their "husband won't let them" maybe he's experienced this as well? He could've just been gauging OPs reactions for his own version of an answer.
If she's offered the position, she does have to disclose her religious practices if asked.
No, she doesn't have to disclose anything if it doesn't affect her work or scheduling. Even if scheduling was an issue, she could be relatively vague.
Right, but if she expects accommodation for any religious practices interfering with her job duties or schedule, she does have to disclose this before accepting the position.
My intent was that the employer may be asking because he's wondering about accommodation, she seems to think it was strictly that he wants her to BE religious, but unless she actually asks, she doesn't know why he's asking.
It's based on the "McDonnell-Douglass Test". The essence is, if the employer asked you a question concerning a protected class issue, it is reasonable to assume the basis was to use it for a hiring decision.
As employers, we are constantly warned that although the act of asking is not a violation of law, there is seldom any non discriminatory reason to be asking, so what remains is it was a basis used to influence the hiring decision.
This is assumed to be potential evidence of discrimination (not proof) in the reading of a legal complaint, because the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. These questions could be considered "prima facie" (on the face) evidence of discrimination if the OP was not hired and she was truly the most qualified. The McDonnel-Douglas burden-shifting test is then applied in many types of employment law issues like discrimination and whistle blowing. The defendents task is to prove that discrimination is not the cause of the adverse action, and then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defense offered was pretext. if they can't, the complaint fails. This burden-shifting framework is used in both state and federal courts in wrongful termination cases.
This is assumed to be potential evidence of discrimination (not proof) in the reading of a legal complaint, because the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. These questions could be considered "prima facie" (on the face) evidence of discrimination if the OP was not hired and she was truly the most qualified. The McDonnel-Douglas burden-shifting test is then applied in many types of employment law issues like discrimination and whistle blowing. The defendents task is to prove that discrimination is not the cause of the adverse action, and then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defense offered was pretext. if they can't, the complaint fails. This burden-shifting framework is used in both state and federal courts in wrongful termination cases.
McDonnel-Douglas can be interpreted as common sense. How can the OP show, indicate, or prove that she was the most qualified? How does she quantify the state of being qualified? Simply having XX amount of years of experience may not be enough. We have no idea about the qualifications of any of the other applicants or the person ultimately hired.
If in an interview, an Asian candidate is asked "where are you from" and they answer "Ohio." The interviewer insists "no, I mean where you are really from" meaning the candidate's ethnic heritage. This can be seen as an "illegal" question. If that Asian person isn't hired, is it automatically discrimination? It goes without saying that every candidate believes they are always the most qualified. Thoughts?
By the way, I'll go there. I've been on CD a for a few years. Every time a person of color brings up potential discrimination, they are told it's not real. When a woman brings up pay inequity, she's told it's not real. Funny how the CD audience selectively sees the presence of "discrimination" when the basis of the alleged discrimination is something that potentially applies to them.
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.
