Sting reveals anti-trans job bias

November 4, 2015 at 1:35 pm EST | by Lou Chibbaro Jr.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/11/04/sting-reveals-anti-trans-job-bias/


The report includes these findings:

Forty-eight percent of employers appeared to prefer "at least one less-qualified applicant perceived as cisgender (individuals who do not identify as transgender or gender non-conforming) over a more qualified applicant perceived as transgender."

Thirty-three percent of employers offered interviews to one or more less-qualified applicants perceived as cisgender while they did not offer an interview to at least one of the better-qualified applicants perceived as transgender.

An applicant portrayed by OHR as a transgender man with work experience at a transgender advocacy organization "experienced the highest individual rate of discrimination" by employers responding to the test applications

Oh, my gosh.  This article just made me *so* sad, and not for the reason the authors intended.  (Suzi, thanks for sharing it though. Whether others agree with my take or not, it's really important for us to know that this is going on.)

I hate the idea of anyone not getting a job just because they're trans, but I think the only thing worse than that is to have the government go around trying to scare employers into giving us jobs when they don't want to.  If Biff the Bad Restaurant Owner doesn't want to hire a trans woman, but is now worried that I'm a government mole sent to entrap him, he'll call me in for an interview, come up with a reason not to hire me that isn't related to my trans status ("she didn't smile enough", maybe), and send me on my way. I still won't have a job, and I'll have wasted my time at an interview that couldn't possibly lead to one.

I also think the metric used to gauge anti-trans bias is so flawed as to be irresponsible and dangerous.   I work for a tiny three-person software company, and part of my job is to hire a lot of people for short-term contracts.  Deciding who to call back is *never* as simple as applying some sort of standard formula like "years of experience + prestigiousness of college = desirability", especially when the position you're hiring for is a skilled one.

More likely, the reason I called Candidate A back is that I liked the way she described the work she did at her former employer (communication skills!), or her last project happened to be related in some way to what we're trying to do now.  If the OHR had sent us a pair of fake resumes, it would have been lethally easy for me to make the "incorrect" response in their eyes and put us on the wrong end of an "enforcement action".  Then we'd be out of business, because small startups like ours don't have the profit margins to defend themselves against things like this, and one more trans woman would be out of a job. Thanks, OHR!

Worst of all, IMO, is the way the government has now pitted trans people against potential employers.  We're a tiny, poorly-understood minority fighting for acceptance; the absolute last thing we need is for employers to look at us and see, not just a person like them looking for an honest job, but a potential threat to their business and livelihood.  If they think we might be the government trying to lay a trap for them, the best case scenario is that they'll step carefully around us and ease us out of their lives as soon as possible. 

A more likely one is that they'll start to get angry, at us as well as the government, and our relations with the general public will be poisoned beyond repair for the foreseeable future.  No, it's not logical to blame trans people for something the government did in our name, but if this stuff goes on long enough and causes enough damage to the businesses that are targeted, that will no longer matter.

and that is why I don't really want to be OUT anymore.

Oh, puh-lease, ActionLiz. There are tons of resume studies showing bias, and no company in the history of the world has ever cared one tiny little bit, because they account for such a miniscule fraction of resumes received as to be completely irrelevant.

If your little startup wants to increase its competitiveness, it can do things like *remove names from resumes* when reviewing them. It's actually a really simple and effective way to avoid implicit biases at the screening level. When Big Bad Biff actually brings you in for an interview, implicit biases are often reduced because of the sunk cost involved in bringing someone in, plus the fact that he's faced with an actual human being and not a sheet of paper.

Maybe that way you'll end up with a less racist and sexist company in addition to being less transphobic, and in the process reduce the money spent on recruiting.

 

I need to ask that temperature in this thread be turned down a notch and that when we disagree, we do it in the most respectful and affirming way possible.

Hi Alyssa...

I'm really happy to talk with you about this in more detail, because I think it's really important, but can we please keep it friendly even if we disagree?  I'm the kind of girl who gets about three "dealing with conflict" points to spend every week, and these days they're all going towards preventing the kids from jumping on the couch, playing chicken with dump trucks, etc.  Anyway...

Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 07, 2015, 04:15:41 AM
Oh, puh-lease, ActionLiz. There are tons of resume studies showing bias, and no company in the history of the world has ever cared one tiny little bit, because they account for such a miniscule fraction of resumes received as to be completely irrelevant.

Sure, I didn't say that bias doesn't exist.  I'm willing to stipulate that it does.

I'm just saying that this government "sting" doesn't solve that problem.  I think it actually creates new problems for trans people seeking employment by creating distrust and hostility between us and potential employers.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 07, 2015, 04:15:41 AM
If your little startup wants to increase its competitiveness, it can do things like *remove names from resumes* when reviewing them. It's actually a really simple and effective way to avoid implicit biases at the screening level.

Well... maybe we already do this.  My original post didn't specify.

Even if it helps us hire better employees, though, this strategy unfortunately won't protect us if the government decides to make us a target of their next "sting".  From the OHR report on the study:

Quote
"The tester applicants were constructed to be more qualified than the control applicants by having higher GPAs (grade point average in college), more work experience, and having attended colleges that were ranked higher than or equal to the colleges the control applicants attended," the report says.

"Therefore, when a control applicant received a callback but a tester applicant did not, it could be inferred that discrimination based on gender identity was likely," the report says.

The government is deciding, in a vacuum, that companies should determine candidate desirability by looking at GPA, years of experience, and college ranking.  Any deviation from this formula is considered evidence of bias, and may be considered grounds for initiating an "enforcement action" against the company in question.  They won't know whether I looked at the candidates' names or not.  All they'll know is that I was "supposed to" call Candidate A back, and I actually called Candidate B.  Cue grim-looking men arriving at our office in nondescript sedans.

I actually don't see how *any* company can protect themselves against a sting like this, because no company is going to use such a formula when hiring skilled candidates.  If they did, they'd probably end up with some really bad employees.  The really important factors that make or break a candidate -- written communication skills, relevance of past work experience, etc. -- don't seem to be accounted for in this study at all.  So no matter what steps I (or any hiring manager) take to ensure that I look at everyone's resume as objectively as possible, I'm still opening my company up to the wrath of the government unless I pick the candidates they're expecting me to pick.  And, depending on what comes across my desk that day, there may actually be very good reasons for me to pick someone else instead.