TBone14;898708 wrote:Practicality and the law/EEO don't seem to match.

ernest_t_bass;898627 wrote:This is what I don't like. It's almost like, if they are pregnant, you should almost just GIVE them the job. That way there will not be a discrimination law suit.

Here's a question, though. What if the final three candidates are pregnant, black, and jewish. Or what if you have one white guy, and one pregnant, black, jewish lady?

tcarrier32;898719 wrote:i wonder how many black jewish people there are.

O-Trap;898764 wrote:Depends, though more than you think. There was, at one time, a very large population of Jewish people in northeast Africa who would have been considered black by all standards.

The American Jewish community includes African American Jews and other American Jews of African descent (such as American Beta Israel), excluding North African Jewish Americans, who are considered Mizrahi or Sephardi. Estimates of the number of American Jews of African descent in the United States range from 20,000[SUP][65][/SUP] to 200,000.[SUP][66][/SUP]

gorocks99;898767 wrote:There's a wikipedia for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews#Jews_of_color

TBone14;898708 wrote:Practicality and the law/EEO don't seem to match. Any reason for making job related decisions...ie..hiring, firing, promotion.. based on anything other than qualifications and work performance is discrimination in the eyes of the law. Fair or not..

password;898800 wrote:The law also says you can't discriminate against gays, would you want to hire a gay guy to be the boys gym teacher at a school? I would think practicality makes more sense in the long run, when you consider the possible chances of major lawsuits because he decided to have ball sack inspection day in his office with the boys.