A staffing company allegedly fulfilling a customer’s discriminatory hiring practices learned this lesson the hard way.
Two years ago, the EEOC announced that it had sued a staffing company that allegedly honored requests that some business clients made over several years to fill positions with only male workers. The EEOC charged that managers instructed recruiters to comply with these gender-based requests to appease clients. Supposedly, the staffing agency told female workers that specific jobs were unavailable or would not be a good placement due to their gender. For example, recruiters informed women that labor-intensive jobs would be too hard, that warehouse jobs were mainly for men, and that women didn’t belong there. The EEOC further alleged that the staffing company dissuaded some of its own recruiters who voiced concerns about such discrimination.
If true, all of this violates Title VII. The EEOC has said as much in longstanding guidance to staffing agencies:
The fact that a staffing firm’s discriminatory assignment practice is based on its client’s requirement is no defense. Thus, a staffing firm is liable if it honors a client’s discriminatory assignment request or if it knows that its client has rejected workers in a protected class for discriminatory reasons and for that reason refuses to assign individuals in that protected class to that client.
So it should come as no surprise that, last week, the EEOC announced that it had settled its lawsuit for $875,000. As part of the settlement, the staffing company must retain an independent consultant to draft and implement policies and procedures prohibiting discrimination against female workers and investigate all complaints of discrimination. Additionally, it must retain a third party to train its managers and recruiters on sex discrimination (how not to) and its new anti-discrimination policies.
I know a guy who hasn’t necessarily endeared himself to the company by blogging about it, but he could be available.