Navigation
Search
New Comments
Handy Links
Syndication
« How fluffy words relate to house prices and job offers | Main | Disparate treatment still exists? You bet. »
U.S. Government defines "Internet applicant"
On October 18, 2005 by Jamie Madigan
Quick, answer this: What is an applicant?
This is an important question because in the U.S. there are many federal laws and guidelines around what you have to record and report in terms of applicants in order for the government to track unfair hiring practices, especially if your company does business with the Federal government. But at first this also seems like a simple question. An applicant in the context of HR is someone who applies for a job.
But what about that guy who spammed everyone's e-mail address with unsolicited resumes? What about the person who has a job-seeker profile on that major job board where you sometimes post openings? Are these people applicants? Now it's kind of a gray area.
Fortunately, the government is actually working to clear this point up an wipe away some of the gray. The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) recently released a ruling that defines an "internet applicant." Specifically, it's anyone who satisfies the following conditions:
- The individual submits an expression of interest in employment through the Internet or related electronic data technologies;
- The contractor considers the individual for employment in a particular position;
- The individual's expression of interest indicates the individual possesses the basic objective qualifications for the position; and
- The individual at no point in the contractor's selection process prior to receiving an offer of employment from the contractor, removes himself or herself from further consideration or otherwise indicates that he or she is no longer interested in the position
So there you have it. The funny thing is, though, that in early 2004 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a statement on exactly the same topic, also in conjunction with the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor. I even wrote about it on my personal website. In the statement, the EEOC said that in order to be considered an applicant in the context of the Internet, the following must have happened:
- the employer has acted to fill a particular position;
- the individual has followed the employer's standard procedures for submitting applications; and
- the individual has indicated an interest in the particular position.
Now, the EEOC theoretically has wider influence than the OFCCP, since it doesn't just apply to federal contractors. The requirements are slightly different, and it appears that the EEOC's are more lenient since they don't require the applicant to possess "basic objective qualifications for the position" and you don't loose your applicant status if you drop out of the selection process. I have to admit, though, that I don't really fully understand the implications of the two rulings from different departments. Will the EEOC adopt the more recent ruling by the OFCCP? Will they remain separate? Which one is "correct" for an employer bound by both?
If anyone knows the answers, please share.
Existing comments:
Posted by Bryan at October 18, 2005 5:08 PM:
I would be nice if the EEOC issued a clarifying statement, or at the very least something indicating what their status is on issuing their new Uniform Guidelines Q&A. What I take from all this is that employers should collect demographic information on pretty much everyone that applies for any job. Of course how the employers DO this is a whole 'nother can of worms...
Posted by Jamie at October 18, 2005 7:14 PM:
Yeah, that makes sense. Especially if it's through a web page or other online system, it's pretty easy to collect the demographic information automatically. Just feels like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
Posted by Michael at October 20, 2005 8:19 AM:
I was kind of part of a discussion with someone from the OFCCP, who said that EEOC may never release a final ruling on this issue. Or, at the very least, it would take a long time until it was released! I have no idea why this would be so.
Post your own comment:
