McDonalds cashier requirements

[Esmeralda]

There are many examples in the past where employers who required college degrees were successfully sued for violating anti-discrimination laws. The courts ruled that such requirements had a disparate impact on Blacks since less Blacks had such degrees than Whites. The only way to win such a discrimination suit was to prove that the required degree was necessary for performance of the offered job.

I may be wrong, but I doubt that McDonald's could prove that having a BA was necessary for someone to be a cashier. What do you think?

PS: I hate to give links when I feel that the subject matter should be known or could be known with a minute or two of basic research. I would suggest that you Google “College degrees and disparate impact.” There are 1,640,000 sites for you to check out.

But, the situation you describe has to do with racial discrimination. If a place like McDonald's wants to hire people with degrees to bring up the level of their workforce, it isn't racial or any other kind of discrimination; it is just them wanting to have a better performing workforce. There are communities that require policement to have a 4 year degree. The don't literally need one to be a cop, but no one has ever sued over it, and the level of their workforce is higher, imo. I grew up in a city that required those hired on the police force to have a 4 year degree, and they were better policemen/women than in other big cities, imo. Purposely putting up an obstacle to keep people of a certain race or gender out is one thing; raising the bar on the quality and characteristics of who you want to hire is another.

First of all, many employers have in fact lost discrimination lawsuits because the degree requirements they imposed had a disparate impact on minorities and the degree was not reasonably necessary for performance of the offered position. There is no argument on this point.

Second, some positions may justify a degree requirement, but others clearly do not, and this is a matter for the courts to determine. Again, this has been established by a multitude of discrimination lawsuits over time. There is no debate on this either.

Third, and finally, you think that, “Purposely putting up an obstacle to keep people of a certain race or gender out is one thing; raising the bar on the quality and characteristics of who you want to hire is another.” However, the law CLEARLY say otherwise. In disparate impact cases, plaintiffs do not have to prove discriminatory intent, only discriminatory effect. This is a well-settled legal matter so there is no debating the issue. I suggest that your understanding of the law regarding disparate impact is woefully inadequate and you really need to study the matter.

In my opinion if McDonald's imposed a BA requirement for entry-level cashiers and a lawsuit was filed against them, they wouldn't have a chance in hell of convincing a court that the degree was necessary. I have never known of an employer who successfully defended itself in a disparate impact discrimination lawsuit by claiming the degree was necessary to “bring up the level of their workforce.” You may disagree, but that's the way life goes.

Now I am done with this thread.

I will give you the last word. I'm an old man, so please be kind.

No, I am not familiar with this law; I was going by what I consider common sense, and I don't consider this law, as you describe it, to be based in common sense. In any case, I have no intention in reading up on it; in my work, I have more than enough reading to do as it is, and far more than most people have. Reading that is relative to me and my life and work. This disparate impact thing has nothing directly to do with me: degree requirements are very explicit and common knowledge in my career field.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course it wasn't true. It's all about the "disparate impact" part of anti-discrimination laws. I doubt that any business, especially a large one, would be foolish enough to impose such meaningless standards. Had it been true, there would have been a lawsuit filed for sure.

It is illegal to require a degree? Since when?

A lawsuit filed, LMAO. They can make any requirements they want for a job. I don't think this has anything to do with disparate impact and discrimination. A college degree can simply mean you are intelligent and have been able to focus on a goal and to work hard. Any employer is justified in wanting employees with those qualities. As well, any restaurant is justified in wanting employees with experience--experience working with the public, experience handling food, experience handling money. They are not required to hire teenagers with no skills and no previous experience just because you say so.

Excuse me? I am not the one that said it.

I will give you credit for agreeing with me, and thus being right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Looks like you're safe, it wasn't true.

McDonald's: No bachelor's degree needed | WashingtonExaminer.com

The story was true, even your link admits that, it just turned out to be a mistake that, apparently, was not the fault of McDonalds.

Boy, you have a wierd way of looking at things

The ad was posted.

The story reported on the ad.

McDonald's is claiming that they not write the requirements that way.

What, exactly, is weird about me seeing all of that? Is it because I hedged the comment about it not being the fault of a massive corporation?

 

[Yurt]

Bachelors degree and 2 years of experience.

Want to tell me again how wonderful the economy is?

McDonald's cashier job requires bachelor's degree | Video Library | Detroit Free Press

Looks like you're safe, it wasn't true.

McDonald's: No bachelor's degree needed | WashingtonExaminer.com

Of course it wasn't true. It's all about the "disparate impact" part of anti-discrimination laws. I doubt that any business, especially a large one, would be foolish enough to impose such meaningless standards. Had it been true, there would have been a lawsuit filed for sure.

a lawsuit?

on what grounds?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Looks like you're safe, it wasn't true.

McDonald's: No bachelor's degree needed | WashingtonExaminer.com

The story was true, even your link admits that, it just turned out to be a mistake that, apparently, was not the fault of McDonalds.

And you're a moron for believing it to begin with and for posting it here like you were spiking a football or something.

Jackass.

I am a moron for believing that the ad was posted?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course it wasn't true. It's all about the "disparate impact" part of anti-discrimination laws. I doubt that any business, especially a large one, would be foolish enough to impose such meaningless standards. Had it been true, there would have been a lawsuit filed for sure.

It is illegal to require a degree? Since when?

There are many examples in the past where employers who required college degrees were successfully sued for violating anti-discrimination laws. The courts ruled that such requirements had a disparate impact on Blacks since less Blacks had such degrees than Whites. The only way to win such a discrimination suit was to prove that the required degree was necessary for performance of the offered job.

I may be wrong, but I doubt that McDonald's could prove that having a BA was necessary for someone to be a cashier. What do you think?

PS: I hate to give links when I feel that the subject matter should be known or could be known with a minute or two of basic research. I would suggest that you Google “College degrees and disparate impact.” There are 1,640,000 sites for you to check out.

Edited to add: Currently, the Obama Administration is considering making it discriminatory to refuse to hire someone just because he/she convicted of a crime, with no regard to the type of crime or the nature of the offered employment. The logic is that compared to Whites a higher percentage of Blacks have been convicted of a crime. This is an application of the disparate impact rule.

I would suggest you do it yourself, and provide examples to back up your claims.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is illegal to require a degree? Since when?

There are many examples in the past where employers who required college degrees were successfully sued for violating anti-discrimination laws. The courts ruled that such requirements had a disparate impact on Blacks since less Blacks had such degrees than Whites. The only way to win such a discrimination suit was to prove that the required degree was necessary for performance of the offered job.

I may be wrong, but I doubt that McDonald's could prove that having a BA was necessary for someone to be a cashier. What do you think?

PS: I hate to give links when I feel that the subject matter should be known or could be known with a minute or two of basic research. I would suggest that you Google “College degrees and disparate impact.” There are 1,640,000 sites for you to check out.

Edited to add: Currently, the Obama Administration is considering making it discriminatory to refuse to hire someone just because he/she convicted of a crime, with no regard to the type of crime or the nature of the offered employment. The logic is that compared to Whites a higher percentage of Blacks have been convicted of a crime. This is an application of the disparate impact rule.

^bullshit. The EEOC guidelines make it clear that you cannot ONLY require criminal background checks on prospective employees because of what race or religion they belong to. In other words, you cannot just require criminal background checks for white people and let anyone else be hired without a criminal background check.

Just a side note, when Ravi and I agree on something it is almost beyond doubt that we are correct since we both have an automatic response of taking the opposite position the other person does.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Bachelors degree and 2 years of experience.

Want to tell me again how wonderful the economy is?

McDonald's cashier job requires bachelor's degree | Video Library | Detroit Free Press

Right. First the story may be true, but it is not accurate. Most MC Donald's stores are franchised owned by private companies or individuals. SO this is not as though there is a Mc Donald's corporate wide edict mandating workers have a BA....Perhaps the more accurate portrayal is all management trainees are required to have a 4yr degree. It's still a stretch as most fast food managers are among the lowest paid in the food and beverage industry.
One thing...I was surprised to discover that Enterprise Car Rentals requires all employees in their stores have at least a BA or BS to be considered for employment. Enterprise expects all of it's store workers to be on track for management. It shows. Most of my contact with the people in these places has been professional.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Bachelors degree and 2 years of experience.

Want to tell me again how wonderful the economy is?

McDonald's cashier job requires bachelor's degree | Video Library | Detroit Free Press

Looks like you're safe, it wasn't true.

McDonald's: No bachelor's degree needed | WashingtonExaminer.com

Of course it wasn't true. It's all about the "disparate impact" part of anti-discrimination laws. I doubt that any business, especially a large one, would be foolish enough to impose such meaningless standards. Had it been true, there would have been a lawsuit filed for sure.

WHOA!!! Just a minute....How does one make that great leap from a job requirement to a lawsuit?
Businesses are free to set their requirements for employment as they see fit. That is so as long as the business is in compliance with state and federal labor and EEOC laws.
Read my last post. Enterprise Car Rentals requires a 4 year degree for eligibility to work the counter in their agency locations. All counter employees are expected to be on a path to management. That comes straight from a friend who is a district manager for the company.
Anti discrimination suit ...my ass.

 

[The Professor]

There are many examples in the past where employers who required college degrees were successfully sued for violating anti-discrimination laws. The courts ruled that such requirements had a disparate impact on Blacks since less Blacks had such degrees than Whites. The only way to win such a discrimination suit was to prove that the required degree was necessary for performance of the offered job.

I may be wrong, but I doubt that McDonald's could prove that having a BA was necessary for someone to be a cashier. What do you think?

PS: I hate to give links when I feel that the subject matter should be known or could be known with a minute or two of basic research. I would suggest that you Google “College degrees and disparate impact.” There are 1,640,000 sites for you to check out.

Edited to add: Currently, the Obama Administration is considering making it discriminatory to refuse to hire someone just because he/she convicted of a crime, with no regard to the type of crime or the nature of the offered employment. The logic is that compared to Whites a higher percentage of Blacks have been convicted of a crime. This is an application of the disparate impact rule.

^bullshit. The EEOC guidelines make it clear that you cannot ONLY require criminal background checks on prospective employees because of what race or religion they belong to. In other words, you cannot just require criminal background checks for white people and let anyone else be hired without a criminal background check.

Just a side note, when Ravi and I agree on something it is almost beyond doubt that we are correct since we both have an automatic response of taking the opposite position the other person does.

I never suggested that there was an actual or proposed law which would make it illegal to perform background checks on one race only. I do not know where either you or Ravi got that idea. What I did assert - correctly - was that the Obama Administration was considering not allowing past criminal convictions - OF THOSE OF ANY RACE - to be an automatic bar to employment. Under the PROPOSED legislation, employers would have to consider both the nature of the employment and the type of conviction. This new rule would of course apply to ALL candidates for employment. The reason given for the rule is that denying employment to all convicted candidates has a "disparate impact" on minority candidates since minorities tend to have a proportionately higher number of convictions than Whites.

 

[The Professor]

Based on some of the comments I have read, I had to add the following:

I am more than a little surprised that some of you fine folks have never heard of the "Disparate Impact" rule established by law. Some of you criticized me without checking the facts out for yourself, insisting I provide a link. I didn't think it was necessary because I assumed (erroneously) that everyone know about this basic legislation. Plus, I knew the information was readily available on the Internet. In fact, anyone who took just a minute or two to Google “disparate impact and college degrees” would discover there are over 250,000 links to explore (if you Google “disparate impact without the 'college degree' qualifier, you will find over 4,200,000 links). However, some of you are unwilling to do your own research, so I reluctantly give you a few links. Here is a general description of the law which has been in effect for decades – that's right, decades (at least 40 years according to my fading memory):

EEOC issues Opinion Letter on Disparate Impact of Education (College Degree) Requirements

Here is an advisory opinion from the legal counsel for the EEOC concerning whether requiring a master’s degree, without the possibility of substituting experience or other education, would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (The letter was written in 2009). This should give you some insight as to what employers must consider when establishing criteria for hiring and promotion:

EEO Information and resources for HR Professionals and Students

It is undeniable that no employer in this country is completely free to select whatever criteria he/she deems desirable for hiring and promoting employees without fear of possible unfavorable consequences if such requirement adversely impact minority candidates. Period. Disparate Impact is the law of the land and employers can be, and in fact have been sued, because their requirements had a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities. I am not saying the law makes sense, and in fact I am opposed to such laws. However, neither my opinion nor yours will change the law.

Some of you may be inclined to call me racist because I am against Affirmative Action. Don't bother. Racism is not defined by which government programs one is for or against. Racism is defined as an opinion that one race is inferior to another and I harbor no such thoughts and never have. Personally, I think such laws are racist by definition because they presuppose that minorities cannot compete with Whites without some type of help. I think that minorities can make it on their own, as many indeed have.

What is frightening is that so many posters on this forum didn't know anything about Disparate Impact laws, and this is very old and oft' cited legislation which affects every business and a hell of a lot of employees. What is even more frightening is that these posters were willing to criticize and even ridicule my post without bothering to take a mere minute or two to check the facts.

To all my critics: You were wrong, dead wrong. You apparently think the law is always fair and always makes complete sense. I know better. What I found funny is that a few of you took more time to criticize my post than it would have taken to Google the matter and find out the truth for yourself. At any rate, I did my best to inform you, and the rest is up to you.

Disparate Impact: It's real no matter how much you don't want it to be. Accept it, learn to live with it, and most important … get off my ass. I'm too old and tired for this shit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How in the hell can anyone prove in a court of law that an applicant was excluded due to a prior criminal conviction?
In any event, such a blanket regulation would be impossible.
Many occupations require the handling of money, handling of sensitive financial information or other sensitive material. Also, law enforcement requires a clean criminal history.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Based on some of the comments I have read, I had to add the following:

I am more than a little surprised that some of you fine folks have never heard of the "Disparate Impact" rule established by law. Some of you criticized me without checking the facts out for yourself, insisting I provide a link. I didn't think it was necessary because I assumed (erroneously) that everyone know about this basic legislation. Plus, I knew the information was readily available on the Internet. In fact, anyone who took just a minute or two to Google “disparate impact and college degrees” would discover there are over 250,000 links to explore (if you Google “disparate impact without the 'college degree' qualifier, you will find over 4,200,000 links). However, some of you are unwilling to do your own research, so I reluctantly give you a few links. Here is a general description of the law which has been in effect for decades – that's right, decades (at least 40 years according to my fading memory):

EEOC issues Opinion Letter on Disparate Impact of Education (College Degree) Requirements

Here is an advisory opinion from the legal counsel for the EEOC concerning whether requiring a master’s degree, without the possibility of substituting experience or other education, would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (The letter was written in 2009). This should give you some insight as to what employers must consider when establishing criteria for hiring and promotion:

EEO Information and resources for HR Professionals and Students

It is undeniable that no employer in this country is completely free to select whatever criteria he/she deems desirable for hiring and promoting employees without fear of possible unfavorable consequences if such requirement adversely impact minority candidates. Period. Disparate Impact is the law of the land and employers can be, and in fact have been sued, because their requirements had a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities. I am not saying the law makes sense, and in fact I am opposed to such laws. However, neither my opinion nor yours will change the law.

Some of you may be inclined to call me racist because I am against Affirmative Action. Don't bother. Racism is not defined by which government programs one is for or against. Racism is defined as an opinion that one race is inferior to another and I harbor no such thoughts and never have. Personally, I think such laws are racist by definition because they presuppose that minorities cannot compete with Whites without some type of help. I think that minorities can make it on their own, as many indeed have.

What is frightening is that so many posters on this forum didn't know anything about Disparate Impact laws, and this is very old and oft' cited legislation which affects every business and a hell of a lot of employees. What is even more frightening is that these posters were willing to criticize and even ridicule my post without bothering to take a mere minute or two to check the facts.

To all my critics: You were wrong, dead wrong. You apparently think the law is always fair and always makes complete sense. I know better. What I found funny is that a few of you took more time to criticize my post than it would have taken to Google the matter and find out the truth for yourself. At any rate, I did my best to inform you, and the rest is up to you.

Disparate Impact: It's real no matter how much you don't want it to be. Accept it, learn to live with it, and most important … get off my ass. I'm too old and tired for this shit.

I read the article in the link. I thought about it. Then read the comments below.
This condition disparate impact seems more likely to produce litigation than it presents job opportunities.
Once again, the federal government appears to have ignored the law of unintended consequences.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^bullshit. The EEOC guidelines make it clear that you cannot ONLY require criminal background checks on prospective employees because of what race or religion they belong to. In other words, you cannot just require criminal background checks for white people and let anyone else be hired without a criminal background check.

Just a side note, when Ravi and I agree on something it is almost beyond doubt that we are correct since we both have an automatic response of taking the opposite position the other person does.

I never suggested that there was an actual or proposed law which would make it illegal to perform background checks on one race only. I do not know where either you or Ravi got that idea. What I did assert - correctly - was that the Obama Administration was considering not allowing past criminal convictions - OF THOSE OF ANY RACE - to be an automatic bar to employment. Under the PROPOSED legislation, employers would have to consider both the nature of the employment and the type of conviction. This new rule would of course apply to ALL candidates for employment. The reason given for the rule is that denying employment to all convicted candidates has a "disparate impact" on minority candidates since minorities tend to have a proportionately higher number of convictions than Whites.

Nice try. The problem is we both agree on the fact that you cannot sue an employer for requiring a college degree, neither one of us mentioned criminal background checks.

 

[The Professor]

How in the hell can anyone prove in a court of law that an applicant was excluded due to a prior criminal conviction?
In any event, such a blanket regulation would be impossible.
Many occupations require the handling of money, handling of sensitive financial information or other sensitive material. Also, law enforcement requires a clean criminal history.

It's simple. Since all employers are honest and forthright, they will immediately confess to their nefarious conduct, hire the man with full back pay and have a full-page apology printed in the local newspaper.

JOKING !!!!

If the proposed legislation is adopted, I assume job applications will allow the applicant to explain his criminal convictions in detail. If he is denied employment, he may file a complaint alleging he was not hired solely because of his criminal conviction. He must first establish a prima facie case by proving that he was qualified for the job, his conviction was not related to the job requirements and someone less qualified but without a criminal conviction was hired instead. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove the man was not hired for other non-discriminatory reasons. That's the way things normally go in discrimination cases and I can't think of any other way it could possibly work in this instance.

What is interesting is that if improper consideration of criminal records constitutes a valid discrimination claim, the race and gender of the plaintiff/complainant is immaterial and the race and gender of the 'comparisons employees' (lesser qualified applicants who were hired over the complainant) is also immaterial. Thus a Black male who had a criminal conviction could prevail by proving that another Black male - but one without a criminal conviction - was hired over him.

Of course, I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier and I cannot predict what final form the proposed legislation will take, assuming that it passes.

If the legislation does pass, I will be looking forward to the debate regarding which types of criminal convictions can lawfully be used by employers to bar applicants from certain positions. Clearly (as you have observed), if someone was convicted of embezzling, it would by prudent and proper for a bank to refuse to hire him as a teller, but not every case is going to be so readily apparent. From a legal perspective, all this could get very interesting. It could turn into a lawyers' paradise.

And some people wonder why more and more employers are trying to automate their businesses.

 

[Ravi]

^bullshit. The EEOC guidelines make it clear that you cannot ONLY require criminal background checks on prospective employees because of what race or religion they belong to. In other words, you cannot just require criminal background checks for white people and let anyone else be hired without a criminal background check.

Just a side note, when Ravi and I agree on something it is almost beyond doubt that we are correct since we both have an automatic response of taking the opposite position the other person does.

I never suggested that there was an actual or proposed law which would make it illegal to perform background checks on one race only. I do not know where either you or Ravi got that idea. What I did assert - correctly - was that the Obama Administration was considering not allowing past criminal convictions - OF THOSE OF ANY RACE - to be an automatic bar to employment. Under the PROPOSED legislation, employers would have to consider both the nature of the employment and the type of conviction. This new rule would of course apply to ALL candidates for employment. The reason given for the rule is that denying employment to all convicted candidates has a "disparate impact" on minority candidates since minorities tend to have a proportionately higher number of convictions than Whites.

Don't know where you are getting your information, but you are incorrect.

 

[The Professor]

Just a side note, when Ravi and I agree on something it is almost beyond doubt that we are correct since we both have an automatic response of taking the opposite position the other person does.

I never suggested that there was an actual or proposed law which would make it illegal to perform background checks on one race only. I do not know where either you or Ravi got that idea. What I did assert - correctly - was that the Obama Administration was considering not allowing past criminal convictions - OF THOSE OF ANY RACE - to be an automatic bar to employment. Under the PROPOSED legislation, employers would have to consider both the nature of the employment and the type of conviction. This new rule would of course apply to ALL candidates for employment. The reason given for the rule is that denying employment to all convicted candidates has a "disparate impact" on minority candidates since minorities tend to have a proportionately higher number of convictions than Whites.

Don't know where you are getting your information, but you are incorrect.

With all due respect, I am correct. Here are several of the millions of links available on the subject. The argument ends with this post and you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Obama?s EEOC: We?ll Sue You If You Don?t Hire Criminals

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/b...ith-criminal-records.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Will new fed guidelines force companies to hire more employees with criminal pasts? | Fox News

EEOC: Employers Must Hire Criminals ? or Face Federal Lawsuits | Next News Network (N3)

EEOC Threatens Lawsuits for Hiring 'Discrimination' over Criminal Records

Edited to add: Even prior to the Obama Administration the EEOC had prosecuted some employers for refusing to hire anyone with a criminal record. However, the present administration is pushing the issue and has let it be known they intend to issue stringent guidelines to protect those with criminal records from discrimination.

Edited to add the following must-read link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578276491630786614.html

 

[JoeB131]

Bachelors degree and 2 years of experience.

Want to tell me again how wonderful the economy is?

McDonald's cashier job requires bachelor's degree | Video Library | Detroit Free Press

Looks like you're safe, it wasn't true.

McDonald's: No bachelor's degree needed | WashingtonExaminer.com

Now if he can only stay on his medication, he'll have a good shot at getting that coveted job.

 

[The Professor]

At the risk of sounding unduly judgmental, I am convinced that some of you are not connecting with dependable news sources. I have several dozen sources including both those with a liberal slant and a conservative slant. I consider the Drudge Report one of the the best places to go. The Drudge site is informative and reliable; further it has links to hundreds of nationally and internationally recognized news sources. Those who read the Drudge report regularly know about the Administration's involvement with the EEOC regulations concerning the hiring of those with criminal records. If you didn't know about it, perhaps you should at least consider other news sources. Here's the path to Drudge:

DRUDGE REPORT 2013®

 

[Fang]

Bachelors degree and 2 years of experience.

Want to tell me again how wonderful the economy is?

McDonald's cashier job requires bachelor's degree | Video Library | Detroit Free Press

How about "speaks English".