Timeline for How do we evaluate a candidate who would not speak to any women during the interview process?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2020 at 17:25 | comment | added | Edwin Buck | I agree with the health sentiments, those requiring reasonable accommodations should be accommodated; however, behavior is not health. John doesn't have anti-woman's disease, he's choosing to avoid women. Even if he has developed a proper phobia of women, it is still a choice to avoid women instead of working out the issues he has worked to develop. Please stop eroding the concept of health accommodations into behavior accommodations, it opens the door to any bad behavior being a protected class. | |
| Mar 10, 2019 at 1:31 | comment | added | Jack | @HLGEM Would you say the same if it was a woman that has androphobia or would the company be in the wrong / sexist for refusing to hire a woman with androphobia? | |
| Mar 9, 2019 at 12:59 | history | edited | Jack Aidley | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 20, 2017 at 15:11 | comment | added | HLGEM | @Jack, you have to accommodate employees for their illnesses, you do not have to hire people who have an illness especially when it creates a problem for existing employees. If he has a mental illness and cannot work with women or talk to them at all, then he needs to get treatment before he is going to be able to work in the current workplace just about anywhere except possibly Saudi Arabia. That is a disability that disqualifies him from most jobs if he doesn't fix it, just like being blind disqualifies you from driving a truck. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 14:02 | comment | added | Graham | @Jack If misbehaviour of an employee (or prospective employee) creates problems for your other employees or customers, the cause does not matter. If he is genuinely phobic, it is his responsibility to deal with his condition so that he can work in a mixed-gender environment. If he doesn't, he is just as much at fault as if he was an active misogynist. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 10:12 | comment | added | Jack Aidley | @Jack If he has a genuinely recognised psychological condition he should inform the company of that and they should respect their obligations under local disability regulation. In the absence of any flagged psychological condition they should proceed under the more likely assumption that he has no such condition. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 10:12 | comment | added | Zanon | @Jack, good point. Having a mental illness should not offend women coworkers, but being sexist certainly will. The former (mentail illness) is involuntary and treatable, but sexism is not. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 8:53 | comment | added | Jack | @Zanon I didn't say he should hire the person. I'm questioning JackAidley suggestion that the OP should have some respect for the women in his company and not hire him, as if this guy was a sexist intentionally snubbing women. | |
| Feb 19, 2017 at 15:46 | comment | added | Zanon | @Jack having a health problem doesn't mean that we should hire the person. We hire someone only if the person fits the position and will not harm other employees. For example, I would not hire a person diagnosed as a psychopath. If the person in question truly suffers from gynophobia, he should seek medical help and apply for jobs where he can sort this out and minimize the issue. For example, working on a remote position. | |
| Feb 19, 2017 at 13:23 | comment | added | Jack | What if he has gynophobia? | |
| Feb 19, 2017 at 10:53 | history | answered | Jack Aidley | CC BY-SA 3.0 |