is it legal to ask marital status when hiring ?
- Thread starter yahoo40
- Start date
Isn't it great how you can get these things cleared up so easily here on Terb!
Regardless, it's usually pretty easy to tell. Most married women will be wearing a ring. Most married men will just look sad.
Seriously though, I am virtually certain that a prospective employer is not allowed to ask anything of a candidate that is not "directly related to the performance of their duties". Most often though, stuff like this is likely to come out just by way of casual chatting...
Maybe...
(hee hee... it was the only choice left for us non-conformists...))
Brill, do you really think so? You should brush up on the Charter.
It is not legal.
Example: Young woman goes for interview with firm; she's wearing an engagement ring. Employer is thinking, Young, don't hire her; she's going to get pregnant. Sorry you don't get the job. Now, it may be difficult to prove, but it's an illegal question.
Example: Gent goes for an interview firm likes his abilities, but they may need him to relocate. Can you ask him if his family will relocate? or can you ask if he's willing to relocate? You decide.
But, go ahead and ask such questions, a smart person will have the labour board and human rights commission all over your company. Heck, they may not need to work again when they get done with you.
It is not legal.
Example: Young woman goes for interview with firm; she's wearing an engagement ring. Employer is thinking, Young, don't hire her; she's going to get pregnant. Sorry you don't get the job. Now, it may be difficult to prove, but it's an illegal question.
Example: Gent goes for an interview firm likes his abilities, but they may need him to relocate. Can you ask him if his family will relocate? or can you ask if he's willing to relocate? You decide.
But, go ahead and ask such questions, a smart person will have the labour board and human rights commission all over your company. Heck, they may not need to work again when they get done with you.
Not really. See this from the Ontario Human Rights Commission:
vii) Marital status:
Questions based on marital status may be asked if the organization serves a particular group of persons identified by their marital status. Questions about marital status are allowed if the employer is a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social organization that serves a particular group of persons such as single, divorced or other persons identified by their marital status. The Code permits giving preference to persons based on their marital status, as long as marital status is a reasonable and bona fide requirement because of the nature of the job.
For other employers, marital status may also be a reasonable and bona fide requirement for a particular job. In these cases, questions about the particular qualification can be asked at the employment interview stage. No other questions about marital status are allowed.
So, this is saying that if you have a bona fida requirement you may ask the question. If you don't, I wouldn't make this inquiry if I were you.
vii) Marital status:
Questions based on marital status may be asked if the organization serves a particular group of persons identified by their marital status. Questions about marital status are allowed if the employer is a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social organization that serves a particular group of persons such as single, divorced or other persons identified by their marital status. The Code permits giving preference to persons based on their marital status, as long as marital status is a reasonable and bona fide requirement because of the nature of the job.
For other employers, marital status may also be a reasonable and bona fide requirement for a particular job. In these cases, questions about the particular qualification can be asked at the employment interview stage. No other questions about marital status are allowed.
So, this is saying that if you have a bona fida requirement you may ask the question. If you don't, I wouldn't make this inquiry if I were you.
It doesn't matter.
Speaking in generalities; if someone doesn't want to hire you, then you won't get in. Period. They can easily say that you are not the right "fit" (the catch-all term that allows prospective employers to legally discriminate) in any case.
That's life.
Speaking in generalities; if someone doesn't want to hire you, then you won't get in. Period. They can easily say that you are not the right "fit" (the catch-all term that allows prospective employers to legally discriminate) in any case.
That's life.
Yes, they can say that, but they better be able to back it up when the OHRC gets involved.
Agreed, but we then step into the realm of deciding on weather or not if it is practicial to go down that avenue. I imagine that a great number of people have been told that they weren't a good fit for the company. I certainly have, but it doesn't mean I'm going to take the time energy and money to raise that kind of hell.
"Right Fit" is actually quite easy to defend, should things ever come to it. All you have to be able to do is show how the person you hired is the right fit. You aren't required to show how that person is a better fit than anyone else. This, thankfully, prevents endless appeals or lawsuits from people who don't get hired, then scream racism or sexism or agism etc. Its a rare instance of government showing common sense and recognizing that most employers hire the best person for the job, and dont' need to be bogged down with complaint from less-qualified people who feel they had an entitlement to the job they didnt' get. What a quagmire it would be, otherwise.
Possible answers to the ARE YOU MARRIED QUESTION.....
Unfortunately
Married but cheating
Married but hobbying
Married to my right/left hand (depending on which one you use)
In my head, I've been divorced since the end of our honeymoon
Are you hitting on me? (Asked to the interviewer)
Yes, but only because I was drunk
Yes, but my wife tricked me
Yes, but only because a divorce is more expensive
Unfortunately
Married but cheating
Married but hobbying
Married to my right/left hand (depending on which one you use)
In my head, I've been divorced since the end of our honeymoon
Are you hitting on me? (Asked to the interviewer)
Yes, but only because I was drunk
Yes, but my wife tricked me
Yes, but only because a divorce is more expensive
Not so easy.
a) Prove that the interviewer asked the question. Any witnesses?
b) They can easily pick apart your CV, looking for something against you.
Check out the lawsuit against NASCAR alleging racial and sexual harassment.
http://www.nascar.com/2008/news/headlines/cup/06/10/former.official.lawsuit/index.html
http://www.jerebeasleyreport.com/2009/02/nascar-settles-discrimination-lawsuit/
It's incredible to read what the woman says she went through.
a) Prove that the interviewer asked the question. Any witnesses?
b) They can easily pick apart your CV, looking for something against you.
Check out the lawsuit against NASCAR alleging racial and sexual harassment.
http://www.nascar.com/2008/news/headlines/cup/06/10/former.official.lawsuit/index.html
http://www.jerebeasleyreport.com/2009/02/nascar-settles-discrimination-lawsuit/
It's incredible to read what the woman says she went through.
In the U.S. most emphatically it is illegal.
As mentioned there are still all sorts of tricks that are used: looking for the tan lines of rings, at university age interviews seeing if a woman is wearing an engagement ring etc. . .
Now trying to prevail in a lawsuit if it is a one-off occurrence - is going to be quite difficult, but fortunately those who violate the law tend to do so systematically.
As mentioned there are still all sorts of tricks that are used: looking for the tan lines of rings, at university age interviews seeing if a woman is wearing an engagement ring etc. . .
Now trying to prevail in a lawsuit if it is a one-off occurrence - is going to be quite difficult, but fortunately those who violate the law tend to do so systematically.
You're obviously not familiar with either the labour board or the human rights commission. They are a royal PITA for employers, I know, I have as an employer been involved in hearings with both organizations. They are extremely one-sided processes which are essentially free for the employee but very costly for the employer. The issue is legal costs: If you case goes all the way through a human rights commission hearing you can expect to be in for as much as $100k in legal fees.
However neither the labour board nor the human rights commission award large sums of money. Typically awards will be in the $10,000 or maybe $20,000 range. It is never the case that someone wins so much money out of these things that they "may not need to work again", that just does not happen.
Because of the extraordinary costs of fighting one of these through all the way to the end, unless there is a principle at stake that is worth fighting for, companies almost universally buckle under the threat of high legal costs and reach some sort of out of court settlement to make the thing go away. Nobody wants to spend $100k on lawyers just to avoid being ordered to pay a $10k judgement.
The only time you see really large judgements is when there are large number of applicants, say, 100 employees who were all discriminated against, and who are each awarded $10k or some such.
LMAO..you're funny man!!Isn't it great how you can get these things cleared up so easily here on Terb!
Regardless, it's usually pretty easy to tell. Most married women will be wearing a ring. Most married men will just look sad.
