Cover Letter - is this a trap?

SamanthaQ

We are a financial institution and recently posted a teller position in the local newspaper. We asked potential applicants to send their cover letter and resume directly to us. We received the following cover letter/resume:

"I am enclosing my resume for your consideration. I am 84 years old. I have a few limitations. I have a heart condition, can't stand any length of time and unable to do lifting. I don't drive after dark because I have a hole in my retina. If you have anything available in my category you may contact me."

The funny thing is we received another one very similar (in format as well!), (both applicants are from the same apartment complex) however the second applicant is 79, heart condition, unable to lift heavy items or stand for lengthy periods and cannot drive at night. This 2nd applicant is also on social security and can only work 20 hours and only on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday....etc...

Should I be concerned or could this just be one friend helping another and so the letters seem similar? They sure disclosed a lot up front!

HRCalico

I have received letters with waaayyy too much info, too. I attribute it in part to times have changed - people used to be instructed to indicate their marital status and health status on resumes! If you got out of the workforce at that time and wanted to get back in now, you wouldn't know much different. Hopefully it isn't an underhanded scheme to trip you up on an EEOC charge, but you never can tell. I would probably consider them with everyone else, maybe even making a copy of the cover letters, filing the original, and blacking out the info that is unnecessary and/or illegal for you to consider. Then, if the position requires full-time, exclude the MTW lady based on that. etc. etc. etc. I know the blacking info out may seem silly, but for me, it would remind me of what I should be considering and what I should not; plus I would not give the hiring supervisor the unedited copy. Of course, had I wrote the original post, my president (who looks at all mail) would already have shown the letter to the first six people he saw on the way to my office and snickered about it, so nobody's perfect. x0:)

Caroliso

> Of course, had I wrote the
>original post, my president (who looks at all
>mail) would already have shown the letter to the
>first six people he saw on the way to my office
>and snickered about it, so nobody's perfect.
>x0:)


Oh, this made me laugh, AND made me thankful I work for the people I do. Cali, I give you credit for surviving in this environment.

Your post also had some useful strategies which i will remember if I'm ever in this situation. Thanks to the original poster for sharing this dilemma.

System

Looks like a trap to me. I've heard of activist groups sending in applicants to catch employers discriminating and then complain to the EEOC. I think they're called testers (or something else x:-/), similar to union salts who apply for jobs, daring you to reject them.

With testers' typical M.O., they'll also send you another applicant with similar qualifications but young and healthy. If the youngster gets hired or goes further in the hiring process, they'll claim discrimination.

I like HRCalico's advice. You might also want to make sure they get equal consideration, and maybe talk to a lawyer.

Or it could be perfectly innocent. :oo

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

HRCalico

Oh, James is right. I am sure there are some activist groups that have done that, although I'm not sure to what degree, and I'd think they would target a company that they think is discriminating against people. I'm sure that's not the case with your company, Samantha! :>)

Anyway, in my past nonprofit life, I worked with the housing branch of the EEOC. They DO use "testers" (right word, James) where they'll send out a "nonprotected class" and a "protected class" with similar jobs, income levels, number of kids, marital status, etc. and see what happens. I would guess the employment branch does the same.

Since you received two similar letters both from a protected class (age), I'm not sure if you're being tested. Do proceed with caution, though, and make your hiring decisions as you always do - without regard to protected status. I'd like to hear a follow up if you end up with any more information! Good luck.

Brother Bluto

Where's the trap again? Did you communicate the hours required of the position when you posted the job? Are they required to stand or could you accommodate with a chair? Does the position require lifting? Is there a place on your application that asks if they can perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation? Do you have minimum requirements and if so do they meet them? Do you have candidates for employment go through a pre-employment physical at an independent occupational health service center? If the physician determines that the candidate is physically unfit to perform the essential functions of the job based on a suitable job description, you should have a pretty good defense for not hiring the person.
The way I understand the law is that an employer only need hire the most suitable person for the position and only those that meet the requirements of the position need be considered. Your defense is upon developing the job description and then communicating that up front to an employment pool that reaches the demographics of the area (news paper, employment office, and/or the company's employment section of it's web site. That's my two cents at 8:00 a.m. after a four day Thanksgiving vacation!