A friend was turned down for a job because...

[Shackleton]

A friend of mine has been welding for about three years now, including being an assistant instructor at my local community college. She's a damn fine welder, and one that I would (and did) highly recommend.

She went in for an interview at a local welding/fabricating shop and the interviewer had her run a couple beads, as well as do some vertical up/down stuff. He then told her that she was a great welder but that she "might be too distracting to the other welders". Needless to say when I heard this, I went through the roof and told her she should sue for violating her EEO rights. She declined because she didn't want that on her head . So I told her she should go back in tomorrow when they open and tell the guy that his reasoning is unacceptable and that he is violating her right to work.

We'll see what happens, but can you believe the nerve of that guy? Granted, maybe she would make all the welders turn their heads when she walks by, but really. In welding gear, no one looks THAT good. Plus, she is so dedicated a worker that she would most likely not even pause for conversation most of the time.

I just wanted to vent on that, thanks.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Sheldon J]

But it is a the truth, 1 female welder in a shop full of single Males = problems.... possible sexual harassment, possible boy girl issues, possible work lost due to BS sessions, the need for separate facilities for her needs, not to mention in shop romances that just are not a good thing....
If she want to weld tell her to go find a construction outfit that does millwright or sheet metal work...

[shockwave]

1 female welder in a shop full of single Males = problems

If she's good at her work then she has every right to be hired. The argument that all men are rapists who can't control themselves is crap and she should sue their asses off if she's denied work for such a spurious reason. The guys on the floor should be thankful that they'll have something nice to look at during the workday.

[Big Larry]

Unfortunately most people try to take the easy route. IMO the most qualified person should get the job. I'd say fight for it, however I probably wouldn't because I wouldn't want to work for someone with that mentality. Doesn't sound like he sticks up for his workers nor can he manage them effectively if he already admits it would be a problem. If she's as good as you say she is, well I'd consider that his loss.

[Tala]

Or perhaps she is just too distracting to HIM. I wouldn't want to work for him either!
I would totally sue them, but I wouldn't work there.

[boricua]

The interviewer was definitely out of line and made a big mistake when he verbalized his opinion. True or not, it was an inappropriate and unprofessional comment. In my vast experience conducting interviews (dozens per month for the past 6 years), these types of comments may get this guy and the company he works for in court very easily to defend a discrimination case.

[tkruf]

If she's qualified, she should get the job. There may not be an issue with the men that work there. They may be glad that there "would be now" a gal among them and treat her like one of the guys. If there starts to be any problems, then the employer needs to do what's right and pull the men in one at a time and "remind" them of the sexual harassment laws and what is inappropriate conduct.

[Tally XD]

Or perhaps she is just too distracting to HIM. I wouldn't want to work for him either!
I would totally sue them, but I wouldn't work there.

That right there is the answer. The guy knows he won't have a shot with her so he just wont hire her.

[Hopyard]

I'm always amazed at the stupid things people use when they are trying to tell someone why they weren't hired.

Long before the EEO laws, no, maybe about the time they were new and no one knew much about them (I didn't), I actually had someone tell me that at 32 I was too old and his company's health insurance premiums would go up if he hired me. He may have been candid and right, but in today's world that would have earned me a possible 250K. The lady involved here should discuss this with the folks at her employment commission---or not, as she prefers.

[cammo]

First, it was truly I-D-I-O-T-I-C of the interviewer to say something like that. OK, think it, but DON'T SAY IT. (I'm a realist).

Second, I have worked in male rich atmospheres as the only female. Most of the time, most would say that inclusion of a female to water down all the maleness is welcomed and preferred. It seems to settle an atmosphere somewhat. I'm sure there are those that will disagree. Point is, maybe it would not be such a tragedy to bring in a female. You could do this as a temp and if was a disaster you could un-do it gracefully.

[stanislaskasava]

I don't mean to stir the pot, but I have a slightly different opinion. Shouldn't a business owner have the right to choose who he hires, based on whatever criteria he thinks is best? I think I have a fundamental problem with the government being involved in an employer's choice of employee. After all, the employer is PAYING MONEY for something (labor, appearance, personality, whatever it may be). Shouldn't the boss have the right to choose exactly what he wants to pay for?

For example, would it really be wrong for a Victoria's Secret store manager to not hire someone who appeared to be a dirty old man during the interview? Would it really matter if he has boatloads of experience with women's lingerie? Would it really matter if he's an expert with a cash register? The manager might feel that a dirty old man behind the counter would hurt sales. The manager might feel that he would increase the potential for workplace harassment. Who knows. Shouldn't the one who's shelling out the cash get to choose what he gets in return?

Maybe the OP's friend really didn't do all that well during the working interview and the boss didn't want to make her feel bad, so he gave her a compliment, instead. Maybe she didn't look strong enough to do some heavy lifting that he knew would be part of the job. Maybe she was overly flirtatious during the interview. Nobody knows his reasoning and I don't see why it's any of our (including the government or the court's) business.

Have we all been brainwashed with political correctness and 'anti-discrimination' propaganda for so long that we can't think for ourselves anymore? Do we really need to sue, just because we can? I would never sue someone for doing something that I would like to have the right to do, if the shoe were on the other foot. If I did, I'd be one heckuva hypocrite.

[Tala]

Maybe she didn't look strong enough to do some heavy lifting that he knew would be part of the job.

Ya know, I get that a lot just based on my appearance.
It's not for you to look at me and judge. I may look like a scrawny little girl, but I have unloaded trucks for a living before.
There's a million ads in the paper that say "must lift 50#" and I'm like pssssh that's just a bag of feed, but...

[stanislaskasava]

Ya know, I get that a lot just based on my appearance.
It's not for you to look at me and judge. I may look like a scrawny little girl, but I have unloaded trucks for a living before.
There's a million ads in the paper that say "must lift 50#" and I'm like pssssh that's just a bag of feed, but...

Oh, yes it is. That's my whole point. If I'm paying the wage, I should have the right to look and judge before I hire.

Was that the only thing you disagree with or would you care to respond to my Victoria's Secret example?

[Hopyard]

There is a difference between looking and judging, and between unlawful judgments and unlawful decisions. There are really good reasons why we have laws such as the ADAA and EEOC regulations, and other anti-discriminatory laws. These don't take from anyone the right to make rational judgments. They take the right to make discriminatory judgments.

Too often advocates of PC are really advocating for the right to be impolite, uncivil, unjust toward others. We don't live in a libertarian utopia and if you want to know what that might look like, look to how things worked in 1870. Not really very well.

[Tala]

Oh, yes it is. That's my whole point. If I'm paying the wage, I should have the right to look and judge before I hire.

Was that the only thing you disagree with or would you care to respond to my Victoria's Secret example?

Well every job I have ever worked made you sign a statement that you can perform the basic functions of the job (lifting would be included) so that's for me to sign the paper or not, you can't tell just by looking.

I believe that VS gets around discrimination laws the same way models do. Also some restraunts may prefer to hire only Aisian or hispanic waitstaff for "authenticity" and such is legal, I believe VS can probably stick to the "classic lingarie model" looking employees by the same line of reasoning, but I'm no lawyer.