What constitutes an "applicant"?
dmcclaren
5 Posts
I was reviewing the EEOC's RECORDKEEPING GUIDANCE CLARIFIES DEFINITION OF "JOB APPLICANT" FOR INTERNET AND RELATED TECHNOLOGIES page and the first bullet point for determination states,
"the employer has acted to fill a particular position"
The majority of our applicants and successful hires come to us via word-of-mouth. Since that is the "norm", even if we don't post/publish an ad seeking applicants should those who seek us out still be counted as applicants for the purpose of record keeping?
I guess what I'm getting at, is this, do we need to retain all of those applican't's resumes for at least one year?
"the employer has acted to fill a particular position"
The majority of our applicants and successful hires come to us via word-of-mouth. Since that is the "norm", even if we don't post/publish an ad seeking applicants should those who seek us out still be counted as applicants for the purpose of record keeping?
I guess what I'm getting at, is this, do we need to retain all of those applican't's resumes for at least one year?
Comments
Federal discrimination laws protect applicants as well as employees regardless of your definition of “applicant.” It is important that you define who you consider to be an employment “applicant,” because once a person becomes an applicant you may need to keep certain employment records.
I agree with Joanne. It's a good idea to have a standard job application and to require all applicants to complete it - even if you have received an applicant’s resume. Having a standard employment application helps to ensure fairness in your hiring process by asking for the same information from every applicant.
Some companies return unsolicited resumes to the sender. Some file them and some trash them. I always liked to keep them on file as unsolicited resumes. If the person had exceptional experience that I thought could be needed at some point, then I also kept a copy in a reference file for that area of the company.
Sharon
I'm almost afraid to ask what the other half might be; but, what the hay! What else are you shredding, Frank?
Sharon
Was that question out of line?
As Sharon pointed out, most of the guidance with regard to applicants has been specific to Internet applicants. For "good ol' fashioned paper applications," though, the only real guidance (assuming we aren't dealing with a federal contractor) comes from a Question and Answer document the EEOC released in 1979.
This document states that the determination of who is an applicant is dependent on (1) the employer's practices and procedures and (2) that the applicant has indicated an interest in being considered for hiring, promotion, or other employment opportunities.
Still less than clear, right?
The general interpretation of this by labor attorneys has been that an applicant:
- Must follow the employer's practices and procedures and
- Express an interest in employment.
Which means that if your standard practice is only to accept applications when you have an opening, then the fact that unsolicited resumes that arrive when no opening is available would not, by itself, mean those individuals were applicants.
In your case, then, if your company has set a standard practice of accepting applicants via word-of-mouth, then the safest bet would be to treat these people as "applicants" for EEOC purposes.
It's an issue that, unfortunately, has gone by the wayside a bit, since I think the presumption now is that Internet applications are where any remaining confusion lies, so any clarification efforts from the EEOC have been toward those. Yet in the meantime plenty of employers still accept and prefer written applications.