Getting a Job by Hiding Your Ethnic Name

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." So says William Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet. But many people today would disagree. In the New York Times Michael Lou writes about "Whitening the Resume" (Free registration required to read) In this article he talks about African American job candidates taking the "blackness" out of their names, schools, experience and references in order to get a foot in the door for an interview. Although regrettable, it is not a new phenomenon. A couple of decades ago women were taking the "femaleness" out of their names by using intials. Asians and Middle Easterners were "Americanizing" their names. Even earlier many Italians and Germans were doing the same thing. Hispanics were/are reducing the size of their names by dropping the several family names in their complete names. People will do what they perceive will give them an edge, especially in these "downturn days." In the 80's even young white men were changing their names by initializing their first name and going by their middle name because that "appeared more executive." People even do it regardless of age, sex, race, etc. just because they have a name they don't like. Agnes Susan Smith may is not going to feel her name says youthful and vibrant, so she drops the Agnes and becomes Susan. (Apologies to all Agnes out there.)

Is it right that they feel compelled to do this? Not really. Is it reality, perhaps, the research says so, anyway. Names are very powerful. What we hang on our children can boost or scar them. They can be trendy for the time but become dated with the passage of time. My contempories, many of whom were hippies, named their children Bridge, River, Summer, Spring, Flower, Dweezil, MoonChild, Chastity, etc. I am surprised I have never met "Oh Wow Man". So you parents out there think about what you are going to do to that little child who will someday be an 80 year old with that moniker.

Back to the potential discriminatory decision made on the basis of someone's name. I would hope that recruiters would look beyond that. Perhaps we should have a universal process for just calling someone "Candidate #_____". ( I do seem to recall something like this in the past.) But let's face it, discrimination, though somewhat diminished from three decades ago, does still exist. (See my post on The Big ISM: Racism.) But not all recruiters are lillywhite males. Many are female, many are "of color." So my question to them is "How do you react when you get a resume with an obvious ethnic name?" "Do you screen for 'whiteness'?" The same holds true for managers. Not all are white. Not all are males. Will a black female manager with a name like Mary Wilson have a negative reaction to a black female candidate named Eboni?

I don't know the answer to this. I would like some guidance. Someone tell me that ethnicity is totally ignored in their organization and people are only hired on the basis of their qualification. Make us feel good that progress is being made.

The BIG ISM: Racism

Racism has a long and storied history in the United States, in fact in the history of mankind. However, since I am dealing with the human resources implication under US law I will stick to that arena (mostly.) The emotional impact of racism is still quite evident with the recent encounter between a Harvard professor and a Cambridge police officer and a healthcare town hall in Georgia.

The dictionary definition of racism is: "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Or ..Discrimination or prejudice based on race. " Wikipedia as a more complete treatment of racism found here.

Employers are, or should be, on guard constantly for situations that hint of racism. Programs on diversity have been around for a couple of decades to help raise awareness. And of course Federal and State laws make it illegal to use race as a determining factor in employment. Let's explore the Federal laws.

In the US racism was, and still is to a large extent, a black/white phenomenon. It has since expanded considerably and "minorities" of many "shapes and sizes" are all protected. However, the history of the law shows its origins. The big law that deals with discrimination based on race is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the movement of black Americans in the early 1960's led most notably by Martin Luther King, Jr. However, the law became more than just an act against discrimination targeted toward black Americans. It became a law that covered a broad spectrum of "protected categories" that has gotten broader as time as progressed. It is THE law that guides HR in its daily functioning. It was the FIRST of the many "social" pieces of legislation passed in the last four decades. I am not going into the mechanics of the law, most knowledgeable HR people know them and if you don't you can find them at Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII however, was not the first Federal law to prohibit race discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) was the first law to provide protection against race discrimination. It was a law that specifically declared African Americans to be citizens and entitled to a series of rights previously reserved to white men. It was originally designed specifically to protect African Americans (and my guess is, just African American men) in alot of situations, but has since been expanded to all races. Unlike Title VI, which applies to employers of 15 or more, Section 1981 applies to private employers of any size. Because the law actually dealt with protection in making contracts, of which employment was considered one of them, it also protects other contractual situations such as partnerships and independent contractors. Title VII does not provide this protection. Section 1981 prohibits using race in hiring, promotions, employment benefits, pay, time off, and firing. Harassment and retaliation is also prohibited. Only INTENTIONAL discrimination is covered, not disparate treatment as is covered in Title VII.

Generally, if a firm is being sued for discrimination the plaintiff will sue under both laws. Title VII requires filing a complaint with the EEOC. Section 1981 does not. Title VII complaints are handled by the EEOC. Section 1981 is only handled by the courts. So in situations where the EEOC does not find fault may not free you from a civil lawsuit filed under Section 1981.

Obviously, it would be wonderful if we had a world free of racism. And we have certainly made long strides in this country as the election of President Obama lays testament to. But is it realistic to think it will ever disappear? I don't think it will. In my early days of college I spent alot of time studying mammalian behavior, specifically primates. One of the aspects of behavior that is evident in monkey troop behavior is something called xenophobia. According to the dictionary that is defined as: "...fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign." Many mammals exhibit xenophobia, they drive strange animals from their troops, their herds, etc. I think we have a deep seated remnant of xenophobia in our genetic make up which results in the fear of the different from us. Add to that the "intellectual" capacity that we have over other mammals and we end up with racism, feelings of superiority combined with a fear or dislike of the unknown.

The good news is that it can be overcome. Troops and herds do let strangers in because it is good for the genetic survival of the group. Diversity makes things healthier. And one of the hallmarks of the human mammal is that intelligence. We can understand the biases that we come with naturally and we can overcome them. As long as we understand that discrimination may exist we can reduce it and we can overcome it. In the meanwhile we control it with the use of Federal and State laws.

NASCAR Sued For Harassment: What a Wreck for HR

The headline screams Former official sues NASCAR over harassment claims. Is anyone in HR surprised by this? A black woman official suffers multiple incidents of both racial and sexual harassment. She complains and then is fired. So now there is retaliation as well. This is going to cost NASCAR big time!

But no one, especially HR folks should be surprised this occurred. The history of sexual harassment is rife with example after example of women taking on roles in traditionally male oriented fields or jobs and being subjected to countless acts of hostile environment harassment. And the history of racial harassment has been the same way, only there it was both disparate treatment and disparte impact.

Given this history, that is over 30 years long, you would think that when NASCAR, a bastion of white males, has a black female (or female of any race) join the fold they would be prepared for situations. You would think HR would be sensitive and would not only head off situations but would certainly respond quickly and vigorously to any complaint. But apparently not because the HR manager is named in the lawsuit. Shame on them. They should never work in HR again!

The lesson to the rest of us, if you have not learned it before now, is that when you are going to mix races and sexes in areas where they are not traditionally mixed you had better be prepared for trouble. Training, response time, investigation, discipline all need to be planned for and instituted as quickly as possible. If you don't you will probably get what you deserve. In my opinion NASCAR is going to take a big hit, one that it definately deserves.

"Cat's Paw": Avoid Being the HR Dupe

I learned a new phrase today so I thought I would teach it to you. I was reading an article on a case on discrimination that was headed to the U. S. Supreme Court before it got settled at the last minute. It involved a case of discrimination in which a Hispanic supervisor was biased against a black employee. The supervisor was made life difficult for the employee in a number of ways, including assigning him to weekend overtime work. The employee refused in one case. The supervisor took his case to the regional HR manager (who worked in Arizona, not New Mexico where the supervisor and employee were located). The HR manager told the supervisor to tell the employee that refusal to work would be grounds for termination. The employee called in sick instead of coming to work and was fired.

The employee filed a discrimination claim. Initially the courts dismissed the claim, but an appeals court reversed saying that HR was the decision maker, but it was based upon information provided by the supervisor and what was given was not the complete story. It was headed to the Supreme Court, but the company settled before it got there, paying out $250,000 and committing to alot of training.

In the description of the case they used the term "cat's paw." I had no idea what this meant so I headed to the Internet. Basically it is a term that comes from a fable in which a monkey convinces a cat to reach into a fire to retreive roasting chestnuts. The cat does so, gets its paw singed and the monkey gets all the chestnuts. The cat was duped into being the tool of the monkey, keeping the monkey from getting burned.

In this particular case the HR manager was the cat's paw of the supervisor. The supervisor, by not giving all the information, duped the HR manager into making a decision that the supervisor did not want to make or could not make, but wanted that result. The HR manager, by being remote did not know of previous bias against the employee or favoritism for other employees. The HR manager did not do his/her homework in the case.

The result of this shows that the company can still be held liable for decisions made with good intentions by unknowing parties if the complete story is not known. This means that HR managers need to thoroughly investigate before making recommendations on terminations, etc. As a consultant I occassionally get calls asking "can we fire this person?" I find out about the facts of the case, but my line of questioning always comes back to "Is there any reason to suspect that there may be some bias in this situation?" I ask that question several times, several ways.

So avoid being a "cat's paw" in situations. Don't allow yourself to be duped into making a decision to justify someone else's bias.

Ever Hear of E-RACE? Me Neither.

In a press release newsletter I receive from the EEOC I was reading about a staffing company being sued by EEOC and losing. In the article there was a reference to a February 2007 initiative by the EEOC called E-RACE. Being the curious type, and having never heard anything about this, I followed the link. I discovered that E-RACE stands for Eradicating Racism And Colorism from Employment. As the introduction says "In an effort to identify and implement new strategies that will strengthen its enforcement of Title VII and advance the statutory right to a workplace free of race and color discrimination, EEOC is instituting the E-RACE Initiative."

"The E-RACE Initiative is designed to improve EEOC’s efforts to ensure workplaces are free of race and color discrimination. Specifically, the EEOC will identify issues, criteria and barriers that contribute to race and color discrimination, explore strategies to improve the administrative processing and the litigation of race and color discrimination claims, and enhance public awareness of race and color discrimination in employment. As a framework for implementing the E-RACE Initiative, EEOC has developed a set of detailed E-RACE goals and objectives to be achieved within a 5-year timeframe from FY 2008 to FY 2013." You can click on the link to see these objectives.

My first thought in reading this was "I thought that is what the EEOC has supposed to have been doing all along. Why is it a new initiative?" They go on in their verbage to ask the question "Why Do We Need E-RACE?" They answer the question with a discussion of how many claims there are and how they seem to be increasing. Well that is fine. And racsim and colorism do need to be eradicated. But the real reason for this new initiative seems to be that the EEOC has not been doing their job as well as they should have and they needed to kick themselves in the butt and did so by this new "initiative."

In addition to racism and colorism there are also other increasing areas of discrimination. What about AGEISM? As a baby-boomer I would like more protection there. How about another initiative? I suggest PAGE, Protecting Another Graying Employee! Tell me what else you would like to see.

Discrimination in the Workplace: Double Digit Increases

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a News Release on March 5th detailing the bias claims from 2007 compared to 2006. With one exception, bias claims in all areas saw double digit increases. Here are some of the highlights:

• Race continues to be the largest number of claims, with 30,510 claims, an increase of 12%;
• Retaliation claims had the largest increase, up 18% to 26,663;
• Age discrimination has the second largest percentage increase, up 15%;
• Sex/Gender claims were the only area with a single digit increase of just 7%, however, during FY 2007, pregnancy charges surged to a record high level of 5,587, up 14% from the prior fiscal year’s record of 4,901. Sexual harassment filings increased for the first time since FY 2000, numbering 12,510 – up 4% from the prior fiscal year’s total of 12,025. Additionally, a record 16% of sexual harassment charges were filed by men, up from 9% in the early 1990s.
• Disability claims reached the highest level in 10 years.
• The EEOC recovered $345 million in monetary relief for the charging parties.

So why this increase in activity? Here is my take on some of them:

1. More sexual harassment charges by men- More women bosses?
2. Retaliation charges- Lack of training in companies to reinforce that retaliation is as illegal as the harassment and lack of follow up by HR to insure it is not occurring.
3. Slow down of sex/gender claims- better balance of male/female ratio in the workplace.
4. Disability claims- a greater willingness of the disabled to enter the labor force and a result of an aging workforce as baby boomers age;
5. Age claims- well.... I think everyone probably knows the answer to that one.

What is your take on this? You have any alternative explanations?