HR Administration

Jobs Act Would Prohibit Discrimination Based on Unemployment Status

By Judy Greenwald

Sep. 16, 2011

President Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act, introduced this week, includes provisions that would prohibit discrimination against job applicants on the basis of their unemployment status and that would levy fines of up to $1,000 a day.

However, one expert says he sees little chance of the proposal’s passage by Congress.

The unemployment discrimination proposal begins with Section 371 of the Jobs Act, which calls the proposal the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011. It states,

“Congress finds that denial of employment opportunities to individuals because of their status as unemployed is discriminatory and burdens commerce” by “reducing personal consumption and undermining economic stability,” among other impacts.

The proposal states the act’s purpose includes prohibiting employers from disqualifying individuals because of their unemployed status.

Under the act’s provisions, employers and employment agencies would be prohibited from publishing in any medium an ad for an employee for any job that disqualifies unemployed individuals, or provides they will not be considered for positions. Firms still would be able to consider individuals’ employment histories and examine the reasons for their unemployment.

Fines for violating the act would include liquidated damages of up to $1,000 for each day’s violation and attorneys’ fees and costs. The act would pre-empt state laws.

Philip K. Miles III, an associate with the McQuaide Blasko law firm in State College, Pennsylvania, said he sees little chance of the proposal’s passage, either as a free-standing bill or as part of the overall jobs act. The proposal “essentially creates a new protected class and also creates a new litigation risk for employers seeking to hire employees,” he said.

“I think Congress would be very hesitant to increase risks in the hiring process because it may have some chilling effect on businesses’ hiring, and of course there’s a very partisan divide” over any White House proposal right now, Miles said.

In February, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a hearing on the issue of whether employers are hiring only the employed, and if this has had a disparate impact on protected groups.

Judy Greenwald writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Judy Greenwald writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management.

What’s New at Workforce.com?

blog workforce

Come see what we’re building in the world of predictive employee scheduling, superior labor insights and next-gen employee apps. We’re on a mission to automate workforce management for hourly employees and bring productivity, optimization and engagement to the frontline.

Book a call
See the software

Related Articles

workforce blog

Compliance

Minimum Wage by State in 2023 – All You Need to Know

Summary Twenty-three states and D.C. raised their minimum wage rates in 2023, effective January 1.  Thr...

federal law, minimum wage, pay rates, state law, wage law compliance

workforce blog

HR Administration

Is your employee attendance policy and procedure fit for purpose?

Summary: Lateness and absenteeism are early warning signs of a deteriorating attendance policy. — More ...

compliance, HR technology, human resources

workforce blog

HR Administration

Clawback provisions: A safety net against employee fraud losses

Summary Clawback provisions are usually included as clauses in employee contracts and are used to recou...

clawback provisions, human resources, policy