Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
height difference: being fired for appearance You've almost certainly heard about the dentist who was so afraid that he couldn't resist sexually harassing his very attractive female employee that ...
For instance, although a person might regularly and reliably collect money for her employer in her personal wallet and later give it to her employer, her putting it in her personal wallet may appear improper and give rise to suspicion of commingling. It is common practice in the business and legal communities to avoid even the appearance of ...
Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ cannot be a cost justification in wage gaps between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must balance privacy and safety concerns with the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]
A person specification describes the personal attributes desired in a potential employee. It is a companion document to a job description, describing the personal attributes being sought from applicants to ensure that they are suitable for the role. [1]
In employment law, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (US), bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) (Canada), or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) (UK) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees—a quality that when considered in other contexts would constitute discrimination in ...
Front Office Appearance, short FOA, is a term typically used in human resources to describe the expected look of workers who are typically the first people encountered by customers (sales, secretaries, customer service) and thus need to make a first good impression on customers. The opposite is NFOA (No Front Office Appearance).
On the other hand, men face a 12.6% penalty when applying for jobs dominated by women (personal care, clerical support, health associates, clerks and health professionals). [18] In 2013, a US based study showed Muslim hijab wearing women had a gap in call backs that women not wearing hijabs with the same employment profiles did not have.
In the United States, it is legal for employers to require women to wear makeup and ban men from wearing it. It has been argued that such a distinction in a dress code is not discriminatory because both sexes have rules about their appearance. An important court case that occurred in the U.S was the Jespersen v.