The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Michigan Employees May Not Advertise Availability by Mentioning Religion, Race, Sex, etc., or …
by expressing preference for an employer's characteristics.
Here's an unusual Michigan statute that applies to employees as well as employers, and that I just stumbled across; it was enacted in 1976:
An individual seeking employment shall not publish or cause to be published a notice or advertisement that specifies or indicates the individual's religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status, or expresses a preference, specification, limitation, or discrimination as to the religion, race, color, national origin, age, height, weight, sex, or marital status of a prospective employer.
One exception to the law that I found might cover, for instance, people advertising as to their "bona fide occupational qualifications," such as for actors, but it would require a special application to the Michigan civil rights commission:
A person subject to this article may apply to the commission for an exemption on the basis that religion, national origin, age, height, weight, or sex is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise. Upon sufficient showing, the commission may grant an exemption to the appropriate section of this article.
Another exception seems to exempt "adopt[ing] and carry[ing] out a plan to eliminate present effects of past discriminatory practices or assure equal opportunity with respect to religion, race, color, national origin, or sex if the plan is filed with the commission under rules of the commission and the commission approves the plan." An employee who wants to promote himself on such a basis would presumably have to file a "plan" with the commission as part of his self-promotional efforts—but it's hard to see what exactly that would look like for an individual employee. (This exemption appears to be targeted to employer plans, but I suppose an employee might file such a plan as well.)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sounds like you could beat this with 1A Prof. Volokh.
Suppose a person puts their picture on their resume?
Pictures depict sex, (general) age, race, etc.
Which is why the personnel departments banned pictures in the seventies; to avoid possible lawsuits.
Try to keep up.
Of course, the law is ineffective. Good looking people will always get the job anyway.
'Banned'? I don't believe they do - or could. The personnel department has no legal authority (yet) over someone submitting an application.
'Very strongly discouraged' or even 'refused to accept' might be a better description.
The law needs to ban job interviews.
It is as if the lawyers drafting these rules just do not think.
Curious as to whether there have been any prosecutions under this law?
In a free country, people would be free to enter into employment relationships based on whatever criteria they choose, include preference or dislike for certain "religions, races, colors, national origins," etc. You can can this "freedom of contract" or "freedom of association," but, it seems to me, a country where the government has deprived people of this freedom isn't much of a "free country."
Always a workaround.
You can't ask "do you have kids?" in an interview.
So you ask "are there any factors in your personal life that would hinder you in accepting shift changes or unscheduled overtime?"
No need for subterfuge.
Just describe the job.
"I should tell you that this position requires frequent travel/varying shifts/weekend work, etc."
Let the applicant decide if they can deal with that, rather than making assumptions about their child care arrangements or whatever.
If the employer was content to define the job and judge applicants solely on merit, then they wouldn't need to worry about these laws in the first place.
These laws are written for bad-faith actors. And bad-faith actors are the ones trying to circumvent them.
It is better to have them on record for the inevitable lawsuits.
Giving false information is easier to prove than plain old incompetence, especially in states that tint everything blue.
One can infer a number of these from names though. The sex and religion of Rachel Goldstein or Muhammad XXX can be inferred, though of course it isn't guaranteed.
I can see what they are going for, just don't see that it is practical unless resumes are really carefully sanitized. And don't know that it is constitutional, though as a non lawyer I generally have no clue what that means.
So Sleepy totally violated this with his pick of KBJ, as he expressly only considered Afro-Amurican Females (even ones who don't know what a female is, ironically)
Frank "Know's a female when I see one (Usually)"
How is a Michigan statute germane to that appointment?
it's not, just be nice to have a POTUS who chose peoples because of the content of their character and not the color of their skin and/or if they have a Vagina. (and one who was awake)
Frank
This makes a lot of LinkedIn profiles illegal in Michigan.
So if I was looking for a job in the ministry and wanted to publish something regarding my availability, I would need special dispensation from the State to mention my religious views in that publication? Seriously?
Doesn't that mean that everyone who checks the "female" or "african american" box on an employment application to a Michigan employer is technically breaking the law? Unless they asked for and received an exemption from this commission?
This law seems to cut both ways though. It also disallows affirmative action at the resume screening level?
As usual, Democrats ruin a free country for the rest of us.
Queenie. I always thought you have been undervalued. I want to help you get a job that recognizes your great intelligence and your humanitarian outlook.
Yes. They were bummed out when slavery and later Jim Crow got banned. Now that that’s over, the areas can trend Republican.