How Do Employers [Properly] Disposition Overqualified Applicants?

By Marife Ramos

A client once asked: “Can we disposition overqualified applicants early in the selection process as ‘Did not meet the requirements of the job due to experience’?” The client went on to point out that overqualified candidates, more often than not, will NOT be hired anyway. The client said recruiters know (not “think they know”) that hiring managers typically shy away from hiring overqualified candidates because they tend not to be a good “fit” for the job and eventually leave after a short stint to accept or look for greener pastures. Hence, the client would rather disposition these candidates early in the process and essentially, exclude them from the applicant pool.

Surely, most of us can understand this client’s point of view. From the practical stand point, why should an employer waste time, money, and effort on applicants whom they think will not be a good “fit” anyway? However, excluding these applicants from the selection process simply because they are “perceived” as overqualified can open up an employer to a possible discrimination charge(s) (age discrimination is one of the possibilities).

Here is some advice from the experts on how to properly weed out overqualified applicants who are really not committed on being serious contributors to your organization:

• Let the job seeker self select him/herself out of the process. For example, let them know early in the process the salary requirements; the duties, responsibilities and expectations of the job; the work schedules; etc.

• Develop “fit” profiles. Properly developed fit profiles are used all the time in hiring. Do not simply include questions, at the recruiter’s or hiring manager’s discretion, in a non-validated manner with a non-validated interpretation of the applicant’s responses.

o For example, recruiters or hiring managers can craft questions such as: "Knowing that the job pays so little as compared to your previous job, how can I be convinced that you will remain in this job for a reasonable amount of time?” "Give reasons why you think that this job will not bore you?” "Why should we select you for this job when others with less education and experience can do the job as well or maybe even better?" "Where do you see yourself in two to three years?" These questions, when properly validated, can help the recruiter assess the extent to which the candidate will match with job requirements.

• Reframe questions (and related disposition codes) away from the “overqualified” language to “fit” evaluation/profile questions.
Keep in mind that unless the overqualified applicants “self select themselves out” of the process, they should be considered as “applicants.” If they met the 4 prongs of the OFCCP’s “Definition of an Internet Applicant” they need to move through the selection process just like anybody else. Their records need to be kept for recordkeeping and adverse impact analysis purposes. Selection decisions for and/or against them have to be documented and kept. Besides, not all overqualified applicants will turn out to be unhappy and short-term employees. You might actually find a diamond in a rough, you never know…

OFCCP Announces New Director at National ILG

Patricia A. Shiu, vice president for Programs at the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC) has been appointed to a leadership position with the United States Department of Labor as the director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). "Ms. Shiu has dedicated her twenty-five year career at the LAS-ELC to strengthening and enforcing the rights of low-wage workers and their families."

Patricia A. Shiu is Vice President of Programs at the Employment Law Center, a project of the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco. Ms. Shiu joined the Employment Law Center in 1983 where she focuses primarily on employment discrimination, including sex and race-based discrimination. She also represents workers in family and medical leave cases. Ms. Shiu is the Director of the Society’s Work and Family Project and advocated for the passage of California’s Family Rights Act and its regulations. Ms. Shiu was appointed to the Civil Rights Reviewing Authority for the Department of Education in 1993 by Secretary Richard Riley. She is a former member of the Executive Board of the National Employment Lawyers Association and served as one of its Vice Presidents. Ms. Shiu is a graduate of the University of San Francisco School of Law.

https://www.nela.org/NELA/index.cfm?showfullpage=1&event=showAppPage&pg=semwebCatalog&panel=browse&ft=SWOD&bb=aut&aut=3351

OFCCP flagging contractors who receive bailout money

There has been significant discussion around the country recently stating that contractors who receive bailout money from the Federal government will be subjected to additional scrutiny from the OFCCP. Additional scrutiny allegedly meaning more audits!

Note that it is expected that contractors who receive bailout money will be listed in the Federal Contractor Selection System (FCSS) for potential audits and the Pre-Award list on the OFCCP site is now identifying companies as having received or not received bailout money.

The OFCCP website offers the following statement on their website under: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/arra_web.html

Quote from the website:
"Implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA):
Covered Federal contractors who receive ARRA funding must comply with Executive Order 11246, as amended (EO 11246); Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,as amended (Section 503); and the Vietnam Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended, 38 U.S.C. 4212 (VEVRAA). OFCCP will conduct compliance evaluations and host compliance assistance events to ensure that federal contractors comply and are aware of their responsibilities under EO 11246, Section 503 and VEVRAA."

In addition, contractors who have recently undergone an FCSS audit (using the active case managment method) but have since received ARRA funds can then be subject to an ARRA audit after only 6 months (as opposed to the normal 24 month window). There is also not a limit on the number of open ARRA audits (they can have more than 25 current audits if the contractor has received ARRA funding).

Please visit OFCCP's website for more information:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/arra_data/arra_faqs.htm

BCG partners with Crawley Consulting to provide clients with sexual harassment and staff development training

PREVENTING AND RESPONDING TO WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT
MANAGEMENT AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT TRAINING


Biddle Consulting Group, Inc. (BCG) has partnered with Crawley Consulting to provide clients with expert training in diversity and sexual harassment (California State Assembly Bill 1825) topic areas.

Because charges of sexual harassment can result from activities at the employment site, during work-related functions, to and from work and off site activities, it is imperative that all managers, supervisors and employees be exposed to this topic.


PROTECT THE CLIENT AND ITS EMPLOYEES

Full-day sexual harassment workshops cover:

• How to avoid liability in peer-to-peer as well as manager to subordinate sexual harassment
• How to appropriately respond to allegations that a “hostile environment” has been ignored
• How to appropriately respond to allegations of “same sex” sexual harassment, as well as “Quid Pro Quo” claims of sexual harassment and retaliation
• The most recent and relevant court rulings in these areas and their effects on the organization

An experienced civil rights attorney who has prosecuted and settled cases against public and private entities will explain what you need to know and what you must do to avoid liability.

• Understand the historical significance and definition of sexual harassment
• Understand possible bases for liability
• Respond appropriately to charges of workplace sexual harassment
• Distinguish between normal adult behavior and illegal harassment
• Plan strategies for eliminating illegal harassment
• Correctly counsel the alleged recipient, witnesses and the accused
• Minimize liability under Federal and State Law

Each workshop includes:

• Presentations by Pamela Y. Price and/or Vernon Crawley
• Workshop materials for each participant, including case problems from recent Federal and State Court decisions on discrimination in the workplace for managers and supervisors
• Follow up session to debrief top management on our analysis of participant evaluation forms



BACKGROUND

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 1825

It is now state law that all California employers of 15 or more employees must provide sexual harassment prevention training beginning January 2006, to be repeated every two years. Under the regulations, all new supervisors, managers and lead workers must be provided the training within six months of their appointment.

The training must be provided by qualified individuals and include appropriate content to satisfy the requirement. Crawley Consulting’s workshop is AB 1825 Certified and presented by California Super Lawyer, Pamela Y. Price.


THE PRESENTERS

Pamela Y. Price is a leading civil litigator and heads the Oakland, California law firm of Price and Associates – A Professional Law Corporation. Ms. Price has been recognized nationally for her work on behalf of plaintiffs seeking relief from sexual and other forms of harassment in the workplace and school settings.

A graduate of Yale University and the University of California at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, she has earned degrees in Political Science, Jurisprudence and Social Policy. Price made legal history in 1977 as the only plaintiff to advance to trial in Alexander v. Yale and again in 1993 as the lead counsel in Patricia H. v. Berkeley Unified School District et al.

Both cases were landmark challenges to sexual harassment in education: Alexander established the “quid pro quo” sexual harassment violates Title IX and Patricia H. established that Title IX prohibits a sexually hostile educational environment. She was invited to speak as a panelist upon the 20th anniversary and commemoration of Alexander at the Yale Law School in February 1998.

From 1991-97, Price was also lead counsel in the Title VII case of Pulido v. State of California, where plaintiff was awarded a $1.3 million judgment for sexual harassment against the California Department of Corrections. In January 2002, Price successfully argued a landmark racial harassment and discrimination case before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Abner Morgan, Jr. in National Passenger Railroad Company v. Morgan.

Price established her own civil litigation firm in June 1991 in Oakland, California. The Firm specializes in civil rights litigation, legal malpractice defense and real estate cases. In 1993 and again in 2001, Price received the Charles Houston Bar Association’s Clinton W. White Advocacy Award for her outstanding achievements in civil litigation. She has provided staff development training in sexual harassment prevention to local government officials and school administrators.

Vernon Crawley, President of Crawley Consulting (www.crawleyconsulting.org) is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin, where he attended both undergraduate and graduate schools. Mr. Crawley has enjoyed a distinguished career as a management consultant to Fortune 500 companies, and now advises administrative teams on valuing and managing workplace diversity. He has cultivated a second career as an Affirmative Action Officer, and has been employed with diverse public agencies, including the County of Marin and San Francisco Municipal Railway as EEO program manager. Mr. Crawley has conducted sexual harassment investigations and designed training for a variety of audiences, including “one-on-one coaching” for key executives. He has provided expert witness testimony and case consultations in sexual harassment litigation. He has had many and varying experiences advising agencies on affirmative action programs, investigating charges, training administrators and teachers, conducting organizational diversity needs assessments and developing change management strategies.

SHRM Conference Prize Winner!!

BCG would like to thank all of the people who visited the exhibit hall at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) National Conference in New Orleans, LA. The conference was a huge success with an estimated 10,000 attendees from all over the country and the world.

BCG is happy to announce the winner of our Grand Prize for the conference. Her name is Renee Reynolds from Las Vegas, Nevada. Renee will be receiving an Amazon Kindle! The entire Biddle Consulting team is envious as we would all like to have one of the hot new toys on the market.

Thanks Renee and enjoy from the entire Biddle Consulting Group team!

NEW Biddle Consulting Group Webinar: Hiring Staff in the Aftermath of the Ricci v. DeStefano Case Decision

On June 29, 2009, the United States Supreme Court ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, were subjected to race discrimination when the city threw out a promotional examination on which white firefighters had done well and black firefighters poorly. The complex 5-to-4 ruling, which reversed an appeals court decision is likely to have a significant impact on the legal landscape and could dramatically affect what employers must do to protect themselves from charges of employment discrimination.

Dr. Dan Biddle, CEO of Biddle Consulting Group, was in attendance during the oral arguments that were presented before the Supreme Court. You are invited to join Dr. Biddle for an informative free webinar that deconstructs the Ricci case and offers insight into what it means to employers.

This webinar is offered through the BCG Institute for Workforce Development (BCGi). As always, this BCGi webinar is free and no product or services will be marketed during the presentation. If you have friends of colleagues who may share an interest in this topic, feel free to pass this webinar invitation to them.

Hiring Staff in the Aftermath of the Ricci v. DeStefano Case Decision
July 24, 2009 | 9:30 a.m. PST | 12:30 p.m. EST
Duration: 1.5 hours
Registration: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/288242954
Cost: Free

We look forward to seeing you there!

FINAL RICCI DECISION IS OUT! U.S. SUPREME COURT LEVIES A 5-4 MAJORITY VOTE WITH SHARP DISSENTING OPINIONS

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down their 5-4 decision on the Ricci v. DeStefano case. The justices stated the city’s action in discarding the tests violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court applied a "strong-basis-in-evidence" requirement and ruled that the City failed to meet this requirement because "fear of litigation alone" was insufficient to justify throwing out the exam results.

Attend one of BCG's upcoming webinars or attend our National ILG presentation in Atlanta to hear important ramifications this ruling may have for your employment practices!