Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,073 posts)
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 08:03 PM Jul 2014

Fake Job Applications Prove There’s Real LGBT Discrimination in Hiring


http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/07/04/fake-resumes-show-real-anti-lgbt-discrimination?cmpid=tpdaily-eml-2014-07-04


?itok=kaEDooqf

Being out—or even just supportive of gay causes—can mean you don’t get employed.

July 04, 2014 By Hayley Fox

Hayley Fox is regular contributor to TakePart who has covered breaking news and the occasional adorable animal story for public radio station KPCC 89.3 in Los Angeles.

Jnnifer and Michelle both apply for an administrative assistant position at Exxon Mobil in Illinois.

They went to the same high school and the same college, and they have a similar work history, though Jennifer got better grades and achieved management positions. Yet it’s Michelle who gets the callback for an interview.

The only other real difference between the two is that Jennifer has a history of LGBT activism.

If you haven’t already guessed, Jennifer and Michelle are the names on fake resumes that were submitted to eight different federal contractors as part of a recent study by the Equal Rights Center and Freedom to Work, an LGBT organization pushing for equality in the workplace. Although the applicants in the study are fictional, the results are very real: LGBT applicants were 23 percent less likely to get an interview than their less-qualified heterosexual counterparts.




FULL story at link.

46 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fake Job Applications Prove There’s Real LGBT Discrimination in Hiring (Original Post) Omaha Steve Jul 2014 OP
You can't be an LGBT and a feminist? rocktivity Jul 2014 #1
The "control" was similar political activism experience, whereas Cooperstown Jul 2014 #2
Problem is the work background is too strong. jeff47 Jul 2014 #20
It was better this way. It shows that someone being a liberal activist was fine with them -- pnwmom Jul 2014 #45
I scrub my resume of all political activism BainsBane Jul 2014 #3
Do you scrub the internet of all your political activism? Curmudgeoness Jul 2014 #11
I hope I don't apply there. A google search of my name brings up an obnoxious magician. Taitertots Jul 2014 #15
Oh, god, that would be a problem. Curmudgeoness Jul 2014 #23
no BainsBane Jul 2014 #19
It IS creepy. Curmudgeoness Jul 2014 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author jeff47 Jul 2014 #21
People put their full names on facebook? Or if they do, they don't lock those pages up tight? nt MADem Jul 2014 #24
Yes, people put their full names on FB. Curmudgeoness Jul 2014 #40
That's just ... cretinous and gross! The employer snooping, not the full name stuff. MADem Jul 2014 #43
Ah, memories. madamesilverspurs Jul 2014 #4
Didn't he know littlemissmartypants Jul 2014 #8
Unless it's a pink triangle rickyhall Jul 2014 #13
.. littlemissmartypants Jul 2014 #18
The "Assistant Office Manager" might be a bigger deferent than the activism. Renew Deal Jul 2014 #5
Exactly. They should have made resumes exactly the same. LisaL Jul 2014 #10
My thought exactly. nilram Jul 2014 #16
That's what stood out to me. tammywammy Jul 2014 #17
Exactly, it's not an apples to apples comparison IronLionZion Jul 2014 #25
Yep. Assistant Manager and Office Assistant are worlds apart. cbdo2007 Jul 2014 #39
Just practicing some of the corporate religion rurallib Jul 2014 #6
God, Inc. n/t RKP5637 Jul 2014 #27
What about any other applicants though? PlanetaryOrbit Jul 2014 #7
I have no doubt that employers discriminate on the basis of LGBT status. DeadLetterOffice Jul 2014 #9
K&R DeSwiss Jul 2014 #12
Excellent! ... and so many idiotic ignorant youtube comments. n/t RKP5637 Jul 2014 #28
I'm thinking resumes are electronically scanned and categorized..... radhika Jul 2014 #14
Not a manager, an assistant office manager. Assistant. Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #29
Which is why, questionable methodology or not, my response to the OP is "no shit." nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #41
This proves nothing. being an asst office mgr and applying for admin asst might be a downgrade magical thyme Jul 2014 #26
Of course the fact that it is fully legal to discriminate against LGBT people in 29 States offers a Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #31
the fact that 7 gov contractors have such policies is the proof. magical thyme Jul 2014 #34
Sorry. This doesn't prove much. Dawgs Jul 2014 #30
Want proof? Look at the 29 States that allow legal discrimination against LGBT people. Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #32
Relax. I'm not saying that states don't allow discrimination against LGBT people. Dawgs Jul 2014 #33
As some one who has worked in Fair Housing enforcement research, here's what I see. Gormy Cuss Jul 2014 #35
I think where you and I disagree is on the ignore part. Dawgs Jul 2014 #36
And I'm not saying there was discrimination, just that my experience would tilt it in that direction Gormy Cuss Jul 2014 #38
+1 nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #42
The issues this experiment was out to prove is real. NCTraveler Jul 2014 #37
Don't need no stinkin' fake resumes to know this is true. Behind the Aegis Jul 2014 #44
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #46

rocktivity

(44,555 posts)
1. You can't be an LGBT and a feminist?
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 08:15 PM
Jul 2014

They should have had "control" resumes -- one with no volunteer experience, and one with non-political volunteer experience, such as rescuing animals or working with children.


rocktivity

 

Cooperstown

(49 posts)
2. The "control" was similar political activism experience, whereas
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 08:27 PM
Jul 2014

the "variables" were stronger work and academic backgrounds.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
20. Problem is the work background is too strong.
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 10:00 PM
Jul 2014

"Assistant Office Manager" is significantly higher on the food chain than "Office Assistant". They're going to assume someone who's reached "Assistant Office Manager" is going to want more pay, or will not stay long as an "Administrative Assistant" because that candidate was doing managerial work.

Not saying there's no bias, but this difference gave Exxon a fig leaf to hide behind. It would have been a far better study for the two candidates to have the same level of professional experience. If they wanted to make the LGBT candidate look better, give her a couple years more experience instead of a higher title.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
45. It was better this way. It shows that someone being a liberal activist was fine with them --
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 02:38 AM
Jul 2014

but not being associated with LGBT.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
3. I scrub my resume of all political activism
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 08:29 PM
Jul 2014

if I'm not applying for a job where it would specifically be a benefit.

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)
11. Do you scrub the internet of all your political activism?
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 09:34 PM
Jul 2014

At least where I work, they look at Facebook pages and do Google searches of the names of the applicants. Even the lack of a Facebook account can be a problem, if you can believe that....and it is not a large company. Lord only knows what resources that a company like Exxon/Mobil would have.

 

Taitertots

(7,745 posts)
15. I hope I don't apply there. A google search of my name brings up an obnoxious magician.
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 09:43 PM
Jul 2014

If/when I talk to people about employment, I specifically mention that I'm not a magician.

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)
23. Oh, god, that would be a problem.
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 10:05 PM
Jul 2014

I am lucky so far with searches, at least the ones I have done on myself.....it brings up my name associated with civic organizations or book clubs. But I am not looking for a job either, so I don't delve into it too far.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
19. no
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 10:00 PM
Jul 2014

And I don't believe my employer does internet searches. I understand its common, but I find it creepy. I work for a non-profit, but I would wonder if large companies have time for that sort of thing.

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)
22. It IS creepy.
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 10:02 PM
Jul 2014

But my comment was to show that there are a lot of ways for them to get information on us if we apply for a job. And many of them are very creepy.

Response to Curmudgeoness (Reply #11)

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)
40. Yes, people put their full names on FB.
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 07:04 PM
Jul 2014

At least everyone who I know have their names on there. Smart ones do lock the pages up. But the place I work somehow accesses the FB account....and I don't know if it is because they ask the applicant for access, or how they do it. I was hired before FB, and I am not involved in the hiring process. I just hear them talking about the applicants' pages. Creepy.

I also know that my niece set up a FB account just for job searches, with a very clean history and posts, so this is apparently not as unusual as it sounds.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
43. That's just ... cretinous and gross! The employer snooping, not the full name stuff.
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 02:13 AM
Jul 2014

I just don't use my name on fb--anyone who knows my family can figure out that it's me, but a stranger or someone trying to find me would have a tough time. I also don't post much if at all on it--I will use the message feature if I have to speak with someone I don't have an email address for. I don't post pics of myself or (living) others, either--I guess I am an old fart, and I think some stuff is "TMI."

I have shared some old pictures of long dead family, and that goes over well with the relatives who like to go down memory lane, but that's about the extent of my involvement.

madamesilverspurs

(15,784 posts)
4. Ah, memories.
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 08:35 PM
Jul 2014

Back when the law went into effect that barred asking a person's race on a job application, I was working for a man who was a rude, crude, outspoken bigot. So we were all surprised when he came into the office and taped over the race question on the applications master copy. And we were equally unsurprised when he instructed his secretary to print applications for whites on pink paper, everyone else got blue paper. Slime is everywhere.

Renew Deal

(81,802 posts)
5. The "Assistant Office Manager" might be a bigger deferent than the activism.
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 08:41 PM
Jul 2014

Managers generally aren't happy in admin assistant positions. Jennifer is overqualified.

LisaL

(44,962 posts)
10. Exactly. They should have made resumes exactly the same.
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 09:29 PM
Jul 2014

Somebody could very well have decided Jennifer is overqualified for the position.

IronLionZion

(45,261 posts)
25. Exactly, it's not an apples to apples comparison
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 07:00 AM
Jul 2014

there are too many variables. It should have been the exact same qualifications with different activism, plus a control with no activism.

This study is drawing a false conclusion.

cbdo2007

(9,213 posts)
39. Yep. Assistant Manager and Office Assistant are worlds apart.
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 11:36 AM
Jul 2014

DU seems to be overrun with chicken littles lately with misleading "studies". lol

DeadLetterOffice

(1,352 posts)
9. I have no doubt that employers discriminate on the basis of LGBT status.
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 09:25 PM
Jul 2014

No doubt AT ALL. And it appalls me on a very personal level.

But this study is sloppy, with a sample size and call back rates that are too small to be meaningful...

Yes, the LGBT resume was 23% less likely to get an interview call-back. But the actual DIFFERENCE in call back rates was only 3%, out of only 17 cases that met study criteria for inclusion. You really can't draw any kind of conclusions with those paltry numbers.

Also, if they wanted to be able to say with surety that it was the LGBT activism that affected call-backs, then the resumes should have been matched on all other variables. instead: "The LGBT resume was designed to be stronger in numerous respects." You can't mess with multiple variables and then decide which one has a causal relationship to the outcome. Doesn't work that way.

My point here is mostly that sloppy science makes me crazy, and actually UNDERMINES the cause, because it's not going to be taken seriously (it shouldn't be) and has the potential to be used as a "hey look at those idiots trying to use pseudo-science to further their agenda" talking point for the RW.

I wish they'd done a better job with this study -- it wouldn't have cost any more to make the resumes actually match on all but one variable, and sending out 500 paired resumes (yes, that would've cost more in postage and paper) would have made the 17% response rate still yield an acceptable number of cases to do decent stats analysis with.
Sigh.

radhika

(1,008 posts)
14. I'm thinking resumes are electronically scanned and categorized.....
Sun Jul 6, 2014, 09:39 PM
Jul 2014

The initial review and directing of candidates might have taken place without human intervention.

Possibly noting a candidate working actively in political mode and being a manager (for an asst position) might have been the red flags. If you are willing to effectively lobby for one thing, you might do the same for, say, environmental issues.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
29. Not a manager, an assistant office manager. Assistant.
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 09:24 AM
Jul 2014

Of course, straight folks do as they wish, it is legal to discriminate against LGBT people in 29 States, it is a constant, legal and open practice among HR Straights and this is a well known fact. If that profession of HR specialists had any ethics, they'd be out front fighting laws that permit discrimination, as they should be hyper aware of the issue, the fact that it makes them look suspect, the fact that it prevents proper staffing, and the basic inequity of such laws. But they are not.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
41. Which is why, questionable methodology or not, my response to the OP is "no shit."
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 09:47 PM
Jul 2014

Anyone who doesn't think prejudice is widespread is freaking blind.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
26. This proves nothing. being an asst office mgr and applying for admin asst might be a downgrade
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 07:29 AM
Jul 2014

which would be a big red flag and could nix the applicant on the spot, as "overqualified."

There should only be a single variable, and that should be activism.

We also don't know what kind of cover letter was (or wasn't) included.

And you need more than 1 example to "prove" anything. Statistically, you need a minimum of 30 data points. That's the same resumes sent for the same types of jobs to 30 companies minimum.

Edited to add they sent the resumes to 8 companies for 100 different jobs. And they selected 7 of the companies because they "have their own internal employment policies allowing for discrimination based on sexual orientation..."

And the 8th company, "because shareholders have repeatedly voted down a resolution to protect LGBT workers from discrimination."
http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pr_14_7_1

So they specifically selected 8 gov contractors that are biased to begin with. What the fuck kind of "study" is that?




 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
31. Of course the fact that it is fully legal to discriminate against LGBT people in 29 States offers a
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 09:29 AM
Jul 2014

bit of context. Straight folks made and demand those laws continue. And yet it shocks people that straight employers might actually discriminate?
If they want proof, look to the laws. Those laws are not natural, like rivers and mountains, they are made by humans, like guns and bludgeons.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
34. the fact that 7 gov contractors have such policies is the proof.
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 10:07 AM
Jul 2014

Why study them to see if they're bigots when their own written policies prove it?

I think it would be more useful to do studies across random contractors who don't have such written policies, to find unwritten policies that need regulating on top of the companies that actually codify it.

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
30. Sorry. This doesn't prove much.
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 09:29 AM
Jul 2014

Many applications are overlooked, set aside, or put in a 'not interested' pile for various reasons. Job title or over-qualified could have been the reason.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
32. Want proof? Look at the 29 States that allow legal discrimination against LGBT people.
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 09:32 AM
Jul 2014

Those laws are not in place because straight people treat others equally. Those laws are damning to the entire culture of employment, all professions involved in staffing, straight America and the entire religious community.
So there's that.

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
33. Relax. I'm not saying that states don't allow discrimination against LGBT people.
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 09:36 AM
Jul 2014

I'm saying that this particular test doesn't prove discrimination in this isolated instance.

Gormy Cuss

(30,884 posts)
35. As some one who has worked in Fair Housing enforcement research, here's what I see.
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 10:29 AM
Jul 2014

The test would have been stronger had the LGBT activist's resume had the same job title as the feminist's resume, but the fact that even after resubmission of resumes the company kept contacting a candidate who was not responding while ignoring another perfectly good one would raise my eyebrows. Assistant office manager isn't that different from office assistant after all and it would be foolish to ignore a candidate based on that when you've exhausted the possibilities with those who have only served as office assistants.


eta: the tester targeted companies specifically based on evidence (in the most case, policies) that would suggest an outcome like this. For that and other reasons this study isn't generalizable.

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
36. I think where you and I disagree is on the ignore part.
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 10:43 AM
Jul 2014

Being in HR for over 20 years, and dealing with thousands of new hires, it's VERY possible that better candidates get put into the "not-interested" pile. It's not that they aren't qualified, or wouldn't be perfect for the job, it's that they got put into a pile that isn't going to ever be looked at again.

And the reasons for why they got put into that pile aren't always the same. It could be grammar, job history, appearance of being under or over qualified, etc. If you have a hundred or so people submitting resumes for a position, which isn't uncommon for an office manager type position, you don't always have time to read every line in every resume. You have to come up with a system to put some in one pile and some in another.

My point is that the reason one particular candidate got ignored over another isn't clear in this case.. therefore not proof of discrimination.

And, I'm not saying that there wasn't discrimination. There very well might have been.

Gormy Cuss

(30,884 posts)
38. And I'm not saying there was discrimination, just that my experience would tilt it in that direction
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 11:01 AM
Jul 2014

Remember that the candidates resubmitted resumes so the LGBT activist was put in the "no" pile twice.

As I wrote above, the test was too limited and targeted companies where discrimination in hiring is apparently acceptable thus it's not surprising that there were fewer callbacks.

As someone in HR you are aware that extra effort must be made to ensure that you're not throwing too many resumes from protected class members in that "not interested" pile because of bias. With members of protected groups your company can't simply say it's because of grammar errors or under/over qualification if for example 80% of all the resumes for POCs end up in the "no" pile. You need procedures in place to mitigate potential bias. In this example, interviewing candidates perceived as slightly over or under qualified.

eta: having worked for Federal contractors, the HR also made concerted efforts to change recruiting strategies to identify more potential candidates who were POCs because traditional recruiting methods weren't delivering the diversity among candidates.

IMHO the point of this exercise was to pressure the Federal government to expand nondiscrimination categories to include LGBTers rather than an actual measure of the level of discrimination that is faced.


nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
42. +1
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 10:15 PM
Jul 2014

Not to mention that the federal ENDA was supported by a large majority of Americans (according to polls) even 10-15 years ago. But as usual, a relative handful of extremists get their way.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
37. The issues this experiment was out to prove is real.
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 10:52 AM
Jul 2014

It is currently happening. This "experiment" proves nothing and it is sad that something so flawed would be used. With proper parameters this experiment could work very well. Someone with better knowledge in these sorts of things should do the study over again.

Behind the Aegis

(53,833 posts)
44. Don't need no stinkin' fake resumes to know this is true.
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 02:31 AM
Jul 2014

The study may be lacking, but the "disbelief" some are expressing is just sad. Stop looking for excuses and start looking for solutions!

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fake Job Applications Pro...