Description of the Experience
Getting hired for a job is always challenging as applicants are usually expected to meet the expectations of their potential employers. The latter tend to look for people who align not only with their professional requirements based on the job description but also those who are considered reliable and consistent. One of the experiences of unfair exclusion that I have witnessed entailed my former employer at a local chain restaurant refusing to hire a young woman for a managerial position because of her intentions to get pregnant. The applicant had a stand-out job reference from her previous employer, had more than five years of experience in the hospitality industry, and had a degree in management. She wanted to get the position because the chain restaurant was held to a high standard of service, and she could offer her expertise while growing as a professional individually.
Such an attitude towards an applicant appears discriminatory because a woman’s choice either to have or not to have a child must not prevent them from getting a position for which they are qualified. Moreover, a question should be raised whether such a refusal of job is a violation of existing legislations that prevent workplace discrimination. The experience illustrates prejudice on the part of an employer who does not want to take responsibility for the well-being of their workers. Instead, the employer would rather hire a less skilled person who will not require a maternity leave and thus have cost implications for the company, which is not a fair nor an ethical argument.
Examination of the Experience
As a male, I have found the attitude of the employer toward the applicant unacceptable. Gender bias is a reflection of unethical business practices and the lack of consideration for employees’ well-being and personal life. In my view, it is far more effective to hire a professional manager who will establish structure in the workplace and delegate responsibilities efficiently when they are on leave rather than hiring a less skilled person who will not require a leave. Moreover, any person is subjected to emergencies, and life may not go to plan. In contrast, maternity leave is planned and can be prepared for in advance to avoid any disruptions to a business.
The experience aligns with the sociological concept of prejudice, which denotes a negative attitude toward a group or individuals without just grounds or sufficient evidence. A prejudice toward a young woman who plans to grow her family in the future is a gender-based prejudice that is sexist and unethical in terms of hiring practices. Besides, the concept of stereotyping applies in the example of the experience because the employer had the misconception that maternity leave is always tedious for a business and it is ineffective to hire a person that would require one at some point. The third concept is a social structure, which entails a unique system of social relations in society. There is an expectation that within social networks, women play the role of child-bearers and their careers are not as important, which means that men and women are placed on different levels. However, today, assuming that for a woman, a career is not as important is a misconception and a downside in the perception of modern society.
Research on hiring practices has shown that discriminatory practices in hiring on the basis of possible and realized fertility of candidates exist. As suggested by Becker et al. (2019), workers of a fertile age may be considered at “risk of pregnancy” by their employers, which influences their hiring practices. In their research, the authors found that for part-time jobs, married women who had older kids were more likely to be hired compared to women with younger kids or married but planning to have them in the future. Becker et al. (2019) noted that the hiring practices were significantly affected by the gender norms stereotype assigning childcare responsibilities mainly to women. Similar findings were presented by Duguet et al. (2017), who suggested that anticipation of maternity leave by a recruiter was among the discriminatory practices in hiring women. Therefore, researchers agree on the fact that discrimination based on gender and fertility in hiring practices exists and remains unethical. However, researchers note that the awareness of the issue has increased in recent decades, with more employers becoming less open to denying women from being hired due to their plans to be pregnant due to legal repercussions.
Federal anti-discrimination laws apply in the issue being discussed, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being one of the most prominent. While the Act states that one cannot base hiring decisions based on skin color, race, religion, or national origin, it also includes provisions for avoiding discrimination based on sex. This suggests that gender-based discrimination is generally prohibited and to be avoided in hiring situations. Notably, today, the clause is expanded because the meaning of gender has become more flexible and fluid, which entails a move away from the male-female dichotomy to include individuals of diverse sexual and gender identities (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008). Employees that refuse women from being hired based on their choice to have children in the future violate the Civil Rights Act.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) is a legislation prohibiting discrimination in all employment aspects, including hiring, firing, pay, promotion, and other issues and benefits. Therefore, the Act prevents organizations from establishing policies that limit or prevent women from doing jobs because they are pregnant or are of childbearing age (AAUW, no date). Analyzing this legislation, one may see that it was specifically intended to help women not be adversely influenced in the labor market due to their choice or the possibility of becoming pregnant. Notably, the PDA covers workplaces with fifteen and more employees, and it regulates that an employer cannot ask if a person is pregnant or planning to have children in the future. Looking back at the experience, it becomes clear that the employer violated the PDA and the Civil Rights Act when refusing to hire a skilled professional for a managerial position. There is a high chance of winning a court case against the employer if the job applicant decides to claim damages for discrimination. Because the violation of the laws had taken place, it is possible to conclude that their enforcement in the human resource field lacked persistence and awareness of employees. Efforts to educate organizations on the repercussions of discrimination based on gender and pregnancy are much needed to avoid similar situations from occurring in the future.
Personal Reflection on the Experience
Personally, I think that the ethics of hiring strategies at organizations are largely dependent on individual opinions and perspectives that employers have. Generational differences also play a major role as it is more likely for men from older generations to exclude women from the workforce due to their fertility status because of the outdated bias and stereotyping embedded into their worldview. The patriarchal structure and the employment environment in which individuals of older generations were embedded significantly influenced their perspectives on employment, which have been transformed into their current practices. While generational differences are not an explanation for discriminatory practices, they show that modern hiring practices differ significantly, and there is no longer space for gender bias and the exclusion of professionals from the workforce due to stereotyping.
Because of the lapses in judgment due to discrimination, an essential strategy for employers is to invest time and resources into educating themselves and subordinates about the ethics of hiring and the importance of aligning HR practices with the PDA and the Civil Rights Act. Not only should managers understand following the law will safeguard them from legal issues, but they should also acknowledge the fact that an applicant’s social status or personal life is not a matter of employers’ decision-making. It is unfortunate that a skilled manager got rejected because she was of childbearing age and was planning to expand her family in the future – the company missed on a person who could have transformed the work process and increased profitability. In the end, discrimination never brings anything positive to hiring practices, and it should be avoided at any cost by employers who value their workers and want them to feel appreciated and respected.
References
AAUW. (no date). 7 things to know about pregnancy discrimination. Web.
Becker, S. O., Fernandes, A., & Weichselbaumer, D. (2019). Discrimination in hiring based on potential and realized fertility: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Labor Economics, 59, 139-152.
Duguet, E., Parquet LoĂŻc, D., & Petit, P. (2017). Hiring discrimination against women: Distinguishing taste-based discrimination from statistical discrimination. TEPP Working Paper 2017-11, Web.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2008). Facts about pregnancy discrimination. Web.