[jasaunders]

Originally Posted by ADVERTISE HERE!

This is actually incorrect. The fact that he asked questions seemingly unrelated to the position is no grounds for a complaint. Rather, valid grounds must be that the decision was based on race, religion, sex, national origin, religion, or some other protected class. Questions unrelated to the job description are not prohibited, unless they show that the decision was based on one of these protected classes. The Philadelphia Firefighters' case violated equal protection because it set arbitrary requirements that were deemed to be solely made to exclude women. Random, unrelated questions, however "drilling" or "unrelated" they may be, are not grounds for a claim unless they exhibit a decision based on one of the protected classes.

As for the comments overheard by the original poster, this IS in fact a violation that could be grounds for a discrimination suit. Here's your problem though: It's your word against three "higher-ups" in a single company.

If it were me, I wouldn't waste my time. It's unfortunate that such discrimination exists today, but you're very VERY unlikely to win your case with just your word. However, it might be worth consulting an attorney to hear this for yourself.

The Philadelphia Firefighters case was that a written test was used as part of the criteria for selection and it discriminated against blacks because blacks tend to have lower reading skills than whites; there are statistics backing that blacks tend to have lower education levels. The plaintiffs argued that the written test was not completely relevant to the job. The written test tested subject matter on first aid, fire equipment and one other thing I can't think of now, which appear to be relevant, but there were no weights or improper weights assigned to the written test as opposed to actually performing the duties required for the job.

Now back to the poster's case. If the interviewer posted questions to him that were 'not possible to answer' and these same questions were not posed to other candidates, then he has a case, because the rights of his protected group were violated. Of the three types of discrimination, this falls under Disparate Treatment, whereby the plaintiff's prima facie case must only meet four criteria:
1) he belongs to a protected group (he stated this is so)
2) he applied for and was qualified for the job (this was so or they would not have interviewed him)
3) Despite his qualifications, he was rejected (this happened)
4) The employer continued to seek applicants with similiar qualifications or the position was filled by someone with similiar qualifications (not stated)

Earlier someone quoted the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This is one of the major differences between the acts of 1964 and 1991. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 defines employers explicit obligation to establish business necessity of a selection method. This is done by showing content validity.

Content validy is "a test-validation strategy performed by demonstrating that the items, questions, or problems posed by a test are a representative sample of the kinds of situations or problems that occur on the job."

The poster said the questions were not related to the job, and I highly doubt they were posed to other candidates. In fact, the poster said the guy who posed them just happened to be in town and was not part of the original schedule, so it is unlikely he posed those questions to other candidates.

I'm not saying I am right here, I am just making an argument for a case I believe has some validity. Obviously I'm not a lawyer (although my small claims and circuit court record is undefeated) and I have done significant studying and case studies on these types of cases. It's not a clear cut case, but I believe there to be validity to the argument that discrimination, as defined by the law, took place.

[jasaunders]

One last thing I do want to make clear... it is very unlikely you will win your case. The statistics of on similiar litigation prove this. However, that doesn't mean good can't come out of filing a complaint even if you don't pursue a lawsuit after the fact. However, like I said before, its a personal decision, and I'm not here to tell you what to do.

[1entrepreneur]

Firstly, you have my sympathies. Nobody wants to experience what you went through.

Secondly, I think you should walk away from this situation. If you choose to take any legal action, the evidence are circumstantial. You don't know for certain if the owner's son's words were the actual reason you didn't get the job. They were interviewing 7 other people.

Walk away, leave the situation far behind you, and be at peace.

[totters_traders]

the guys that called you in for the interview, and interviewed you obviously liked you from what you wrote earlier, enough to let u meet the bosses son, desite yopur race or religion so maybe you should contact them and ask them why you didnt get the job !!! see what they say

[Andrew Dean]

Sounds like their Asians. I've had similar experiences.

[hockey97]

I agree with jasaunders. The overall problem is to prove that they were doing what you say they were doing. If you can't prove it with good enough evidence then it's nothing but talk. We are not saying your lieing or anything like that. We just are saying how are you going to prove the the feds that they were doing this.

As jasaunders told you what that company has to do to prove that they weren't doing such act. It shows that it will be very hard to get them in trouble. So the best is to forget about it or post your story online where you name a post or a thread of the company that done such an act to you. Use their websites url name in your title of your post about your story. This will then show up in a search engine which will hurt their image a little. It still wont do much.

The best advice would be forget about it and move on. If this happened to me I wouldn't forget about it lol.

I might of lost my cool and just grab a cup of hot water from the restroom and then kick the door open and throw hot water on him and then say I will do you a favor I won't work for someone like you.

That is what I would do if that job really had no value like it won't hurt me if I didn't get the job.

Just now reminds me to bring a tape recorder to every interview lol. Just in case even if the interview was good and everything did worked out. It's a good thing to hear your interviews so down the road if you had to go to another interview for another job you can at least use interviews from the past to help you out.

Man just imagine if you did have them on tape. Even if you don't plan to sue them you can send that tape to the local news station to air it or have it on the internet it would do more damage then just a forum post of the story.

[Yiie]

Look on the positive side.. If you got the job, I don't think you would've stayed there for very long considering one of your bosses is very narrow minded.

[paul2145r]

Originally Posted by Andrew Dean

Sounds like their Asians. I've had similar experiences.

Lol, was this comedic irony or did you mean it?

[1entrepreneur]

Originally Posted by Andrew Dean

Sounds like their Asians. I've had similar experiences.

Are you saying Asians are racist? If you are, irony.

EDIT: paul2145r, you beat me to it with the irony comment.

[ADVERTISE HERE!]

Originally Posted by jasaunders

The Philadelphia Firefighters case was that a written test was used as part of the criteria for selection and it discriminated against blacks because blacks tend to have lower reading skills than whites; there are statistics backing that blacks tend to have lower education levels. The plaintiffs argued that the written test was not completely relevant to the job. The written test tested subject matter on first aid, fire equipment and one other thing I can't think of now, which appear to be relevant, but there were no weights or improper weights assigned to the written test as opposed to actually performing the duties required for the job.

Now back to the poster's case. If the interviewer posted questions to him that were 'not possible to answer' and these same questions were not posed to other candidates, then he has a case, because the rights of his protected group were violated. Of the three types of discrimination, this falls under Disparate Treatment, whereby the plaintiff's prima facie case must only meet four criteria:
1) he belongs to a protected group (he stated this is so)
2) he applied for and was qualified for the job (this was so or they would not have interviewed him)
3) Despite his qualifications, he was rejected (this happened)
4) The employer continued to seek applicants with similiar qualifications or the position was filled by someone with similiar qualifications (not stated)

Earlier someone quoted the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This is one of the major differences between the acts of 1964 and 1991. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 defines employers explicit obligation to establish business necessity of a selection method. This is done by showing content validity.

Content validy is "a test-validation strategy performed by demonstrating that the items, questions, or problems posed by a test are a representative sample of the kinds of situations or problems that occur on the job."

The poster said the questions were not related to the job, and I highly doubt they were posed to other candidates. In fact, the poster said the guy who posed them just happened to be in town and was not part of the original schedule, so it is unlikely he posed those questions to other candidates.

I'm not saying I am right here, I am just making an argument for a case I believe has some validity. Obviously I'm not a lawyer (although my small claims and circuit court record is undefeated) and I have done significant studying and case studies on these types of cases. It's not a clear cut case, but I believe there to be validity to the argument that discrimination, as defined by the law, took place.

I'll take your word that the case to which I referred was not the Philadelphia Firefighter case. Either way, the point is the same.

Whether the case I referred to (setting criteria that only a male could meet) or the Philadelphia Firefighter case (setting criteria that only a non-black could meet), the point is that job decisions cannot be made on the basis of sex or race (or religion or national origin), unless they are essential to the performance of the job. In either case, they were not.

Do not confuse this with the proposition that a question irrelevant to the job is an EEOC violation. To be a violation, an employer must base its decision on one of these protected classes in determining whether to hire an applicant. If an employer were to ask you what your favorite flower is, the employer would not be in violation - the question was irrelevant, but it did not indicate a decision based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, etc.

Hope this makes things a bit clearer for all.