What do you think?
LindaS
1,510 Posts
Here's the situation...
A female EE has been working for an organization for approx. 6 mos. in a clerical role (claims processing). She has done an excellent job as far as her work duties as well as her attitude, attendance, etc. Several permanent full-time openings become available and she is asked to apply for one of the openings. She does, completes all the requisite paperwork, etc.. In reviewing her past work history it is discovered that at one time she was an exotic dancer.
The supervisor of the department calls her into his office and informs her that he is "aphalled (sp?)" at her background and has to "think about the reputation of the company" before he can offer her a job.
Does anyone see a problem with this?
A female EE has been working for an organization for approx. 6 mos. in a clerical role (claims processing). She has done an excellent job as far as her work duties as well as her attitude, attendance, etc. Several permanent full-time openings become available and she is asked to apply for one of the openings. She does, completes all the requisite paperwork, etc.. In reviewing her past work history it is discovered that at one time she was an exotic dancer.
The supervisor of the department calls her into his office and informs her that he is "aphalled (sp?)" at her background and has to "think about the reputation of the company" before he can offer her a job.
Does anyone see a problem with this?
Comments
How many people know about her past work history? If it's not generally known (and it must not have been, if the supervisor just discovered it), it can't be affecting the company's rep. too much.
My 2 cents.
What would he have said to a gentleman who indicated on the application that he managed a Go-Go bar?
>
>A female EE has been working for an organization
>for approx. 6 mos. in a clerical role (claims
>processing). She has done an excellent job as
>far as her work duties as well as her attitude,
>attendance, etc. Several permanent full-time
>openings become available and she is asked to
>apply for one of the openings. She does,
>completes all the requisite paperwork, etc.. In
>reviewing her past work history it is discovered
>that at one time she was an exotic dancer.
>
>The supervisor of the department calls her into
>his office and informs her that he is "aphalled
>(sp?)" at her background and has to "think about
>the reputation of the company" before he can
>offer her a job.
>
>Does anyone see a problem with this?
Wisconsin law does not prohibit this type of decision if employees are treated the same. For example, if male exotic dancers are treated more favorably, you may have a gender discrimination problem under both State and federal law.
Mike
Michael Modl
Editor, Wisconsin Employment Law Letter
Axley Brynelson, LLP
Personally, I find his judgment abhorrent and would not want him making employment decisions for me. But that's my personal opinion. You might get by refusing to hire her because of a past job he doesn't like, but that doesn't make it right.
Just my opinion.
Because, the ee is an excellent worker, she is asked to apply for a full-time job. The job she had in the past is not illegal. Unless she is "a face" of the company, it has nothing to do with the company's reputation. And, if the supervisor is appalled, it is the supervisor's problem. The problem is not with the ee, it is with the supervisor (who should have kept their mouth shut).
From an administrative point I do. If her work has been good enough for the past six months that the company would approach her with the full-time offer, her background should have nothing to do with whether or not she can do the job. Is that supervisor personally apalled or is there some standard that the company has that she must measure up to? Evidently as a part-time employee her prior activity didn't affect the reputation of the company. The company should be supportive of her as their current employee. Maybe she's too good to work with the echelon who judge; God help them.
I think the man had another reason for calling her into his office. How do you spell prurient?
I can almost guarantee you that if she goes to work under this man (no pun intended), you will be facing a sexual harassment charge within three months. His church and wife will support him, but, the evidence will be overwhelming. Then you'll be asking the Forum if it's safe to fire HER.
Your issue is with that supervisor who seems to want to stand in moral judgement of her. There is only one person who ever walked this earth that is qualified to stand in moral judgement AND IT SURE AIN'T THAT SUPERVISOR!!