great moment from "Stripes"
"Because I sucked a dick and I hated it."
Background of these quotes would take too long to explain from the customs line but one of the funniest lines I've ever heard dead-panned.
"You want to know how I know you're gay?"
"'Cause your dick tastes like shit."
As long as a condition of the application process is that you are required to go through a psychological evaluation, you can choose to apply for the position or not. If you don't want to be asked sensitive questions, don't apply for the job.
IMO this is no different than applying for jobs requiring security clearances...they probe very deeply into what would be considered very personal matters. They don't necessarily care about the answers, they just want to make sure you're not unstable in your personal life, and that you don't have secrets that could be used to blackmail you. For a security clearance they wouldn't care if you're gay, but they would care if you're secretly gay while married in a heterosexual relationship with kids, and absolutely don't want anyone to know about your secret life.
Having to go through this process is stated up front. You don't want to be asked the questions, don't apply.
It is pretty simple. In this situation, asking a football player if he was gay as part of a pre employment question would be an illegal inquiry.
Otherwise very well-financed and likely very well-lawyered organizations would not be doing it unless they were pretty confident it was legal.
Can you provide factual basis as to why many NFL teams are so blatantly violating the law, as you state they are, to back up your assertion?
Just because nobody has sued does make it a legal inquiry.
Difficult to win a case because you would have to prove that you didn't get the job because you either refused to answer the question or you answered that you were. And I would bet that few outright ask if you are gay as opposed to inferring the question and letting a player get the hint and answer the question withou ever being asked. For example, I doubt I ever leave an interview without knowing if a person is married or know the number of kids they have etc etc etc even those asking about any of that isn't legal.
The fact that you even remotely think it isn't clearly demonstrates you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I find that hard to believe.
I would guess that on 50% of the interviews I have been on, I have been asked illegal questions. Generally speaking they are pretty innocuous when folks are trying to make small talk but they are illegal none the less.
For example, I was involved in potential lawsuit with former employer of mine for not hiring someone because she was married which came up in the interview when the woman interviewing commented on how she liked the candidate's wedding ring. Illegal comment/question by all means but she would have had a tough time making her case because she would have had to prove that we didn't hire her specifically because she was married.
Simply put, since it is pretty clear you need it simply put, you cannot ask a question that isn't related to performing the job. Whether someone is gay or not isn't related to one's ability to be a middle linebacker no matter what anyone else on team thinks.
Team chemistry certainly is a reason for not hiring someone. But not hiring someone on the specific basis that they are gay and that fact alone would disrupt team chemistry is not.
It isn't even debatable.
Is it relevant to the ability to do the job or not? If not, it doesn't matter if it's known up front. I suppose it's fine for a company to put on a job description that "we don't want no Catholic pedophiles up in here" as long as its stated clearly and unambiguously? Hey, if you don't want to be asked about your religion, don't apply. Right?
for the record, my political philosophy is identical to yours.
I completely agree that him being gay would not be relevant to how good of a football player he is, and if he were gay there should be zero impact on his draftability.
But if he's secretly gay and doesn't want anyone to know, and then gets blackmailed about it right before the playoffs or superbowl, wouldn't that potentially be relevant information that a team might want to know before they invest millions of dollars and valuable draft picks in you?
You could use that logic to justify asking any question.
That dog don't hunt.
a potential employee. But you can't attempt to deduce a candidate's honesty or lack thereof by asking them questions that you don't legally have the right to know.
NFL will choose the one that doesn't ask their corporate partners to write them huge checks while fending off campaigns from countless gay and civil rights advocacy groups demanding that they not do business with the NFL.
I admittedly know nothing about the law on this. But my question is if they say "Before we invest millions in you we're going to subject you to a very intense psychological interview, and you're going to be asked many personal questions", why would that be illegal? They are telling you up front that they want to know all about you, no hidden surprises...why would that be illegal? Is asking the question the same thing as discrimination, especially if you're told before you start that you're going to be asked the questions?
Could they be opening themselves up to a lawsuit from someone who might suggest that being straight has hence become a condition of employment in the NFL?
In New York, the answer is "NO". Provided the employer has four or more employees, the interviewee cannot be asked about sexual orientation, marital status, disability, and a host of other things. And any cute attempts to get around it (like the "can I set you up with my granddaughter" reference below)will surely be viewed as an improper question if the interviewee does not get the job, is qualified, and sues.
What state rules apply at the NFL Combine I do not know. I am really surprised Roger Goodell is even allowing this story to get any traction at all. He needs to get in gear a set of rules with related fines to discourage this before it gets out of hand. It is only a matter of time until it does.
Yet another phenomenon that Manti's situation has shed light on.
And if it is legal in the team's state, they indicate that the team can ask at the combine
Many cities have ordinances that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by employers (including indianapolis, where the questions are being asked). I don't think the Indy ordinance would necessarily apply to nonresident owners, but it could be a problem for some of these teams at home.
If I am not mistaken, professional athletes pay tax in multiple states and cities (depending on where the play home AND away games)... which ofcourse is based on their employment.
If that is the case is there an argument that they are employed by teams in multiple states including those which this would be illegal (even if the franchise is based in a state where it would be okay)?
(I suppose a response could be that they are likely considered independent contractors...)
The Cross Duck.
How strictly is the bona fide occupational qualification defense applied? For example, if asking a potential draft pick whether he is gay is sex discrimination, could the team rebut this by claiming that being straight is a BFOQ? Let's say they argued:
1) Due to the locker room setups, it would make the other players uncomfortable and some might refuse to play with an openly-gay player and
2) We draft players based on both on-field talent and off-field marketability, and we don't believe (or we have market research to prove) that NFL fans would reject an openly-gay player.
Is there any chance this defense could win?
And preferences of making it easier on employees, or arguments that not following it could hurt business, fail almost universally. Customers' preferences don't work at all. (See all the airline "stewardess" cases from a few decades back)
BFOQ pretty much only succeeds when its an absolute physical requirement. Or when has some artistic/creative component - such as a character in a movie/play/commercial who has to be male or female. I don't know of any cases that tried a BFOQ defense on sexual orientation, though. Probably because sexual orientation isn't a protected characteristic under Federal law, at least yet.
One could make the same arguments about dozens of professions where being gay would make you an outcast amongst your co-workers, or make it more difficult to sell your product to consumers, but that doesn't make it legal. Those arguments only hold water because of existing discrimination against homosexuals, and to make the decision that they're justified in capitulating to it only further exacerbates the issue.
employer for asking such a question?
It seems completely moronic for the NFL to ask such a question.
If teams are asking these questions, it's because they know they can get away with it.
And this in no way justifies the question, but I imagine some teams don't care about the players orientation, but do care how he reacts when asked about it. There are homophobes in the locker room. The coaches and GMs want to be sure they can play together.
Also, asking "are you gay?" is a quick way to expose those homophobes.
basing a hiring decision on something that you are not allowed to base a hiring decision on is. I think it would be possible to ask any old question you want, then back it up with enough documentation of why, outside a particular answer to the question "Are you gay?", you did not hire someone. Not asking the question is just a shortcut.
But I'll tell you that it would be more than enough to base a lawsuit on. Whether that lawsuit would be successful obviously depends on many other things.
Courts can make an inference that any question asked during an interview played a part in a decision-making process. Now certainly an employer can rebut that inference if it has the facts to do so, but the potential for trouble is definitely there.
Just asking the question is pretty significant grounds for a lawsuit. Even if you had some completely unrelated reason for not hiring that person, simply having asked the question will look pretty suspect in court. At the end of the day, if your state prohibits making employment decisions based on sexual orientation, you'd be pretty f-ing stupid to ask a question about it.
I'm not disputing what you said, particularly because you said I was right. But, I'd like to know from where the absolutism of your statement comes.
My clients have different goals and risk tolerances; I'd probably tell them to shy away from this minefield if possible. I am not an attorney.
What I said was just common sense.
something you admittedly don't do for a living.
That, and I see it oft repeated that is illegal to ask a question. Our government does not regulate questions, at least in this instance (I'm open to someone pointing out where it does). It regulates actions.
If there are players that come out and say that teams directly asked them if they're gay or even they felt they were being asked questions designed to find out if they were that's going to become a huge story. Given all the money involved between the NFL and their corporate sponsors I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable about my job status if I were a player personnel guy identified as asking "are you gay" type of questions.
that nobody is going to blow the whistle on them.
NFL player personnel people are probably the kind of meat heads who assume that anyone who would sue them for asking if they're gay is essentially admitting that they're gay. And because potential NFL players are unlikely to want to come out as gay, they're in the clear from being sued.
But I can see how a prospect interviewing for a multi-million dollar job would be hesitant to bring forth a lawsuit, even if justified and regardless of orientation.
From a friend of mine
Female: 'I've heard you're gay. Is that true?'
Friend: 'Why you so curious? You interested in $@&!ing my €}¥£?'
is to be caught with (female) strippers and cocaine.
Even in those states people will try to get around it by asking questions designed to provoke a response: (1) about friends, (2) girlfriends, etc. etc. I have seen this go on in corporations where the boss's secretary/assistant (normally a grandmotherly type) will ask the younger gay employee things like, "Oh you are the cutest and so smart, can I set you up with my granddaughter..."
The NFL Combine questions usually border on the edge of ridiculousness (and can go way past that border) as it is... a few years ago a NFL team official (Jeff Ireland) asked Dez Bryant something along the lines of "Is your mom a prostitute?"
(There is some debate as to the preceding conversation - which may have included Dez saying "My dad was a pimp ... and my mom worked for him.")
So in short, it is not surprising that they are doing this.
of a hoax with a girl to the 'are you gay?' question.
Te'o picks bad time to flop at combine. Is it OK to ask Te'o if he's gay? Some of these "adults" are going to have to look in the mirror one day and answer the question why they felt compelled to try and torpedo the career of a devoutly religious kid that has never even sniffed trouble with the law, led an overachieving team to 12 wins and a title game..oh and also lost his Grandmother during the season (which gets conveniently glossed over)
He's a 21-year old man seeking a multi-million dollar job. I don't think he deserves what he's getting, but it's not as if the media are stalking some random teenager. No, he's seeking a big payday and the limelight and uncomfortable questions come with the territory.
"Colorado’s Nick Kasa says he was asked at combine, ‘Do you like girls?’"
Good grief. What's next? "Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"
There's still many people whom believe Te'o was complicit in the entire thing, if not behind it.
Those people then wonder, "Why would someone like Te'o fake having a girlfriend?"
Then those people say things like, "he did it for publicity" or "he wanted to increase his chances for the Heisman" or "I bet he's gay and he is using the long-distance relationship as a cover."
Before the entire story came out, at least twenty people said some version of the last quote to me.
when many thought Manti was the perpetrator and not the victim. The theory was that the perpetrator was gay. And that theory appears to have had some validity, except that the perpetrator wasn't Te'o, but Tuiasosopo, who's essentially admitted to being in gay and falling in love with Manti.
Now, I suppose, people are curious because Manti fell in love over the phone and internet with a dude pretending to be a chick. Maybe they're still not entirely sure he was fooled, but I still submit that theory makes no sense and is at odd with the facts.
And just so I'm clear, I think the entire line of questioning and potential discrimination should be illegal under federal law.
that this was illegal to ask in a hiring interview. This one's a headscratcher.
Certain states may have laws forbidding it, though.
"So, Dontorionomo, tell me, who do you think gave the most compelling Oscar worthy performance in Les Miserables? Take your time.
Anne Hathaway, Hugh Jackman, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Samantha Barks, Helena Bonham Carter, Aaron Tveit, and Russell Crowe
WTF are you talkin bout?...
Oh Man, I was supposed to go see that with my lady, but she couldn't find a babysitter for my two kids, so I chilled with Vin Diesel on Netflix with my boys....that dude don't mess.
would be a fitting answer to that question.
would never get the job from me. If I asked a question, whatever it was, it meant that I expected an answer, not a smart remark. Any non-answer would equal, "I don't want to work for you." Good, because I wouldn't hire him.
Isn't it illegal to ask such questions in a job interview? "It's none of your business" is a perfect response.
they must do so for a reason, even if it is just to get the interviewee's reaction. If it is illegal, then it is illegal, but saying "none of your business" would be an undiplomatic way to respond. Turning it around, if I, as an interviewee, felt that a question asked to me was so out of line that I had to answer with those words, I would, in fact, be telling the interviewer to take his job and shove it. How I would react, as interviewer or interviewee, has nothing to do with legalities; it has to do with instantly establishing a go/no-go relationship in just a few seconds.
Is that a better response? I would agree that if I answered "None of your business", I would not want or expect the offer from that team or company.
If this subject is important enough for an owner or his rep. to ask a question like this, it should be answered straight, not evasively. Manti did provide a direct answer in his interview with Katie Couric, which was that he was not gay. He should so the same with any NFL interview and straight out say that he is not gay, if that is what he wants to assert--even if it is a lie. If he is gay and says so, then the owners can do with that what they want. Why he should be more evasive with somebody he wants to hire him as compared to somebody who is just asking him questions?