Employment lawyers: is THIS racist?
Discussion
Seems to be hot topic of the month.
I am furious over something I would like to share with you, but derestrictor's post on the Young Ones has taken all the anger out of me. (Thanks a lot.
)
Anyway a friend, N, is a bright young cookie in the City. Works for the fund management arm of a top tier US investment bank. First time passes in the CFA, impeccable track record, all the usual stuff.
Looking to move and his headhunter sources a top job at a London hedge fund - this was about 5 months ago. Over those 5 months the hedge fund has invited him back for 5 rounds of interviews - he has met virtually everyone at the fund. From a shortlist of 25 candidates, N was the last man standing and was invited in for a chat with the chairman.
By this stage the headhunter is already congratulating N and rubbing his hands at the prospect of a big fee.
The chairman says he has 20 minutes and must leave. N is not white and his name is not Anglo-Saxon, and the first question he asks is where are you from? N is honest and tells him he is British, but of Pakistani origin. I have subsequently told N he should not have answered this question, as it should not have been asked.
No other question is asked at the interview. The chairman merely tells him what the job involves and refers him to his partner to tie up administrative loose ends. He then leaves.
A few days later N is told by the headhunter that he didn't get the job and that the chairman vetoed the decision. Feedback from all other staff at the fund had been very positive (indeed otherwise he would not have been the only candidate to progress to the final interview after a 5 month process). There are no other headhunters involved, so no other candidate is being looked at.
The headhunter was speechless - he says it's the first time this has happened to him.
N doesn't want to pursue it as he is too junior and he doesn't want to jeopardise future prospects, but I am gutted for him and want him to pursue this.
Other than the obvious inconvenience 5 rounds of interview over 5 months can cause (including alerting your current employer), and the obviously shabby behaviour of this chairman, what does N have recourse to? Two questions:
1) Has there been a breach of law?
2) Although he doesn't want to take it further, if I were in his place I would be looking for a legal and recognised method of naming and shaming. Is there one?
I am furious over something I would like to share with you, but derestrictor's post on the Young Ones has taken all the anger out of me. (Thanks a lot.
) Anyway a friend, N, is a bright young cookie in the City. Works for the fund management arm of a top tier US investment bank. First time passes in the CFA, impeccable track record, all the usual stuff.
Looking to move and his headhunter sources a top job at a London hedge fund - this was about 5 months ago. Over those 5 months the hedge fund has invited him back for 5 rounds of interviews - he has met virtually everyone at the fund. From a shortlist of 25 candidates, N was the last man standing and was invited in for a chat with the chairman.
By this stage the headhunter is already congratulating N and rubbing his hands at the prospect of a big fee.
The chairman says he has 20 minutes and must leave. N is not white and his name is not Anglo-Saxon, and the first question he asks is where are you from? N is honest and tells him he is British, but of Pakistani origin. I have subsequently told N he should not have answered this question, as it should not have been asked.
No other question is asked at the interview. The chairman merely tells him what the job involves and refers him to his partner to tie up administrative loose ends. He then leaves.
A few days later N is told by the headhunter that he didn't get the job and that the chairman vetoed the decision. Feedback from all other staff at the fund had been very positive (indeed otherwise he would not have been the only candidate to progress to the final interview after a 5 month process). There are no other headhunters involved, so no other candidate is being looked at.
The headhunter was speechless - he says it's the first time this has happened to him.
N doesn't want to pursue it as he is too junior and he doesn't want to jeopardise future prospects, but I am gutted for him and want him to pursue this.
Other than the obvious inconvenience 5 rounds of interview over 5 months can cause (including alerting your current employer), and the obviously shabby behaviour of this chairman, what does N have recourse to? Two questions:
1) Has there been a breach of law?
2) Although he doesn't want to take it further, if I were in his place I would be looking for a legal and recognised method of naming and shaming. Is there one?
Unfortunately difficult to prove. It is likley that the chairman will come up with a whole string of plausable excuses rather than admit to something that he has probably done....
Chances of getting something done - low
Chances that this chap has not taken someone on because of his ethnicity - High....
Its a sad day when this happens....
Chances of getting something done - low
Chances that this chap has not taken someone on because of his ethnicity - High....
Its a sad day when this happens....
Harris_I said:
Seems to be hot topic of the month.
I am furious over something I would like to share with you, but derestrictor's post on the Young Ones has taken all the anger out of me. (Thanks a lot.
Anyway a friend, N, is a bright young cookie in the City. Works for the fund management arm of a top tier US investment bank. First time passes in the CFA, impeccable track record, all the usual stuff.
Looking to move and his headhunter sources a top job at a London hedge fund - this was about 5 months ago. Over those 5 months the hedge fund has invited him back for 5 rounds of interviews - he has met virtually everyone at the fund. From a shortlist of 25 candidates, N was the last man standing and was invited in for a chat with the chairman.
By this stage the headhunter is already congratulating N and rubbing his hands at the prospect of a big fee.
The chairman says he has 20 minutes and must leave. N is not white and his name is not Anglo-Saxon, and the first question he asks is where are you from? N is honest and tells him he is British, but of Pakistani origin. I have subsequently told N he should not have answered this question, as it should not have been asked.
No other question is asked at the interview. The chairman merely tells him what the job involves and refers him to his partner to tie up administrative loose ends. He then leaves.
A few days later N is told by the headhunter that he didn't get the job and that the chairman vetoed the decision. Feedback from all other staff at the fund had been very positive (indeed otherwise he would not have been the only candidate to progress to the final interview after a 5 month process). There are no other headhunters involved, so no other candidate is being looked at.
The headhunter was speechless - he says it's the first time this has happened to him.
N doesn't want to pursue it as he is too junior and he doesn't want to jeopardise future prospects, but I am gutted for him and want him to pursue this.
Other than the obvious inconvenience 5 rounds of interview over 5 months can cause (including alerting your current employer), and the obviously shabby behaviour of this chairman, what does N have recourse to? Two questions:
1) Has there been a breach of law?
2) Although he doesn't want to take it further, if I were in his place I would be looking for a legal and recognised method of naming and shaming. Is there one?
There's no doubt that this is, at the very least, highly unprofessional and I think your friend is perfectly entitled to a proper explanation. The response to this should make it more clear whether racism was the deciding factor. If it becomes apparent that this is the case, I think your friend should treat it as a lucky escape. Better to find out before being employed that the boss is a racist tw*t. Word will get around - the headhunter will get the message. I understand your instinct to name and shame but think it would be better to maintain your dignity and get on with your life. Your friend is far better than this miserable turd and he isn't worth the time and energy.
I suppose the first step should be to ask for feedback on the recruitment process. At least then you will be able to hear the reasons as to why N was passed over, real or otherwise.
There could be something you hadn't thought of that has got in the way (internal moves etc?)
They are required to give feedback now, so why not ask? (Oh and "The Chairman said no" is not good enough feedback btw!)
It does sound like an appalling waste of resource and it does have a rather unpleasant feel about it - but see what they say first.
Cheers
Phil
There could be something you hadn't thought of that has got in the way (internal moves etc?)
They are required to give feedback now, so why not ask? (Oh and "The Chairman said no" is not good enough feedback btw!)
It does sound like an appalling waste of resource and it does have a rather unpleasant feel about it - but see what they say first.
Cheers
Phil
mannginger said:Interesting, is the feedback requirement best practice (optional) or part of today's employment law (mandatory)? This bit of legislation must have passed me by.
They are required to give feedback now, so why not ask? (Oh and "The Chairman said no" is not good enough feedback btw!)Cheers Phil
Not sure of legal status, but was advised at a course a number of years ago that even any CV's received should be kept for x amount of time, with appropriate (even if only brief) notes made as to why not interested in candidate.
Given that in the above case the whole interview process has obviously gone far further, I would say that there should be grounds for a 'proper' explanation. As already mentioned, despite this sounding decidedly iffy, I'm sure the parties involved will be able to come up with a more palatable excuse ...... and very hard to prove that their real motives are different. Disgusting that this still goes on.
Given that in the above case the whole interview process has obviously gone far further, I would say that there should be grounds for a 'proper' explanation. As already mentioned, despite this sounding decidedly iffy, I'm sure the parties involved will be able to come up with a more palatable excuse ...... and very hard to prove that their real motives are different. Disgusting that this still goes on.
Well your freind can get a tribuneral now on the basis of racist reasons for not being employed. This will probably result in an out of court settlement. The problem is that word gets round and he will not get on the shortlist anywhere else. His best bet is forget it and move on. If it happens more frequently then he should become a professional tribuneral claiment. There is a guy on the circuit that has 37 settlements in the last 3 years netting him more than 500000 quid and he bagged one company twice. 
This is discraceful -
5 interviews - what the hell do they want?
Out of courtesy, he should at least get specific feedback from his final interview (their HR division should chase this for him)
It does sound like a blessing though - if chairman is a racist fool, then 'N' may have endured an awful environment to work in, missing various promotion opportunities in the future etc.. Really is awful that this kind of thing still goes on in this day & age.
Just try & take the fact that they saw him 5 times ahead of so many other applicants and he was the no 1 choice (after jumping through so many hoops for them) - so 'N' obviously is a very good candidate and will now be able to take his skills to another company. The headhunter will also know this and probably work his socks off trying to get him something else.
5 interviews - what the hell do they want?
Out of courtesy, he should at least get specific feedback from his final interview (their HR division should chase this for him)
It does sound like a blessing though - if chairman is a racist fool, then 'N' may have endured an awful environment to work in, missing various promotion opportunities in the future etc.. Really is awful that this kind of thing still goes on in this day & age.
Just try & take the fact that they saw him 5 times ahead of so many other applicants and he was the no 1 choice (after jumping through so many hoops for them) - so 'N' obviously is a very good candidate and will now be able to take his skills to another company. The headhunter will also know this and probably work his socks off trying to get him something else.
turbobloke said:
Interesting, is the feedback requirement best practice (optional) or part of today's employment law (mandatory)? This bit of legislation must have passed me by.
My recruitment manager suggests that it falls under the data protection act - a right of any individual to see any information held on them. Many employers tend to want to provide verbal feedback rather than have candidates trawling through every note made about them during a recruitment process.
Saying that however I am not 100% sure as to whether there is specific legislation mandating candidate feedback tbh.
Cheers
Phil
Harris_I said:
N is not white and his name is not Anglo-Saxon
Harris,
Very sorry to hear the story of your friend. I have heard it said that Ethnic Minority people in the city have to be twice as good as a white person to get half the salary of the white person. Sounds like N has come up against the sharp edge of this.
However, given the above, the fact that N is not caucasian would have been obvious to everyone else in the company. I also assume that the name would have been passed on to the Chairman in advance - "Morning Mr Chairman, first thing today is you are to spend 20 minutes with N, the bright spark who we are thinking seriously about employing, whose potential position we discussed at the board meeting last week." If the Chairman was averse to people to ethnic minority, surely he would have put a stop to the appointment at an earlier stage?
Admittedly, the question asked looks jolly fishy, but if the Chairman really is a racist then surely he wouldn't have needed to ask it?
Oli.
N is definitely not in the game of pursuing a claim, nor would any right thinking person, as we all agree. And although he is seething, he says in hindsight he would never want to work for a man like him, as has already been pointed out.
But disgusting is the right word, especially that over 5 months, word entered the market that N was moving and this has affected N's relationship with his current employer.
We went over the final interview, and realise that the only question of substance asked was on his nationality/origin. He was not even asked why he wanted the job. There was some general discussion on ethnic background and colonial history (ALARM BELLS!!). Previous interviews focused on N's view on the markets, the industry, key stocks, valuation methodologies, reasons for the move, etc, but this was just a chat on background.
By the way, as an aside I used to work for a British merchant bank (when such places still existed), and could not stand the way the aristocracy ran these as their own exclusive gentleman's club. Sounds like this toff chairman is exactly the same, so perhaps N has had a lucky escape.
But disgusting is the right word, especially that over 5 months, word entered the market that N was moving and this has affected N's relationship with his current employer.
We went over the final interview, and realise that the only question of substance asked was on his nationality/origin. He was not even asked why he wanted the job. There was some general discussion on ethnic background and colonial history (ALARM BELLS!!). Previous interviews focused on N's view on the markets, the industry, key stocks, valuation methodologies, reasons for the move, etc, but this was just a chat on background.
By the way, as an aside I used to work for a British merchant bank (when such places still existed), and could not stand the way the aristocracy ran these as their own exclusive gentleman's club. Sounds like this toff chairman is exactly the same, so perhaps N has had a lucky escape.
Forgot to add - N has been chasing for some feedback for a few days, but the only feedback is the chairman vetoed the decision which otherwise was unanimously in favour.
Ah well, life wasn't meant to be fair. He is more philosophical than I am, and I guess what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger...
Ah well, life wasn't meant to be fair. He is more philosophical than I am, and I guess what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger...
Harris_I said:
Forgot to add - N has been chasing for some feedback for a few days, but the only feedback is the chairman vetoed the decision which otherwise was unanimously in favour.
Ah well, life wasn't meant to be fair. He is more philosophical than I am, and I guess what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger...
The only feedback is that the Chairman's a c*nt and that N will be a highly valued member of staff with a glittering career at one of his greatest rivals.
I think he'd have a Hell of a job proving racism - although, in all probability, it is.
What amazes me about such Chairman (and I've come across similar myself) is the sheer "lack of wisdom". For him to ask that one question - even if he is a racist - is stupidity, leading to the speculation that he's a bigot. Not just from the cnadidate, but also from other members of his own company - presumably.
What amazes me about such Chairman (and I've come across similar myself) is the sheer "lack of wisdom". For him to ask that one question - even if he is a racist - is stupidity, leading to the speculation that he's a bigot. Not just from the cnadidate, but also from other members of his own company - presumably.
Wasn't there a study recently where the researchers sent out CVs with "Anglo-Saxon" and "non Anglo-Saxon" names at the top, and proved that a candidate with an "Anglo-Saxon" name was far more likely to be selected for interview? I have suggested to my hubby that he try anglicising his name on CVs to see if it makes a difference but he hasn't tried it yet.
I got fired from a contract 'cos the boss didn't like me'.
Unfortunately personality, race, sex etc. are all traits that will help or hinder you in certain circumstances.......
If a busty blonde in a short skirt turned up for interview with a man she is more likely to get the job than if a woman was doing the interview....this unfortunately is human nature and would have nothing to do with their ability to do the job.
Unfortunately personality, race, sex etc. are all traits that will help or hinder you in certain circumstances.......
If a busty blonde in a short skirt turned up for interview with a man she is more likely to get the job than if a woman was doing the interview....this unfortunately is human nature and would have nothing to do with their ability to do the job.
vetteheadracer said:
I got fired from a contract 'cos the boss didn't like me'.
Unfortunately personality, race, sex etc. are all traits that will help or hinder you in certain circumstances.......
If a busty blonde in a short skirt turned up for interview with a man she is more likely to get the job than if a woman was doing the interview....this unfortunately is human nature and would have nothing to do with their ability to do the job.
exactly, it doesn't justify the fact but this is life. at one company i worked with all the people i interviewed to join my team had to be sanctioned by my directors. regardless of what i thought of them they would often tell me to disregard candidates based solely on their hobbies. if a man cited "cooking" as a hobby he was branded a "puff" but if he listed motorsport and rugby, for example, he was approved.
and yes, inevitably, if a female candidate, they had to be pretty to be considered(!).
there are many types of bigotry and racism.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff