Discussion: View Thread

Back to Discussions 

IARP CONNECT Code of Conduct

  • 1.  Sensitive question

    Posted 09-11-2024 14:16

    Hi  - I am working on a family law matter in which I am on the husband's side.  The wife is working very part-time as an adjunct faculty member at a local community college.  She is an observant Muslim woman and wears a hajib.  On the back of her hajib is a prominent Palestinian flag.  I would like to point out that the flag, not the hajib, is a potential negative factor in her finding future full-time employment, if she is wearing it to job interviews.  Particularly in light of current events.

    It is my intention to draw the distinction between the hajib and the flag.  It is also my intention to point out that it is absolutely her first amendment right to wear the flag, and to even wear the flag to the interview, merely that not knowing her audience at a job interview, she may incur employer bias by displaying the flag.  Kind of akin to wearing a Trump or a Harris pin to a job interview, albeit, I recognize that a Palestinian flag is more controversial.  I will add parenthetically that there are other negative issues with this person's job search, much akin to many family law cases that I work on, so I may be able to make my points about the quality of her job search by focusing solely on those deficits.

    Am I being reasonable to bring it up? Unnecessarily controversial?  I am very curious about your feedback.

    Steve



    ------------------------------
    Steven Shedlin
    Rehabilitation Experts of Maryland
    sshedlin@gmail.com
    Rockville, MD United States
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Sensitive question

    Posted 09-11-2024 14:49
    I think it is a reasonable concern and observation to note as one possible barrier. It would be like someone walking into an interview in a MAGA hat. However, barriers and motivation issues are usually plentiful in Family Law cases in my experience. That is to say that it seems to be very common for the spouse being evaluated as to earning capacity (if unemployed or under-employed) is, by any of our standard measures of a quality job search, doing a truly half-assed job of it. Any lay person could see it. We have all had clients/evaluees at all skill and education levels supposedly engaged in what is described by the attorney as being engaged in an active job search who actually spends a couple minutes a day online then goes out hiking or shopping or whatever. It is often more like actively not seeking employment. We all likely have friends and relatives engaged in the same stuff. The government would not even count them as unemployed since their job seeking activity is so very limited. 
    That is my non-answer answer Steve

    --
    Scott T. Stipe
    (503) 807-2668



    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Sensitive question

    Posted 09-11-2024 16:32
    Hi Steve,

    This is an interesting one.  My first stop when reading this was the CRC code of ethics regarding A.2.a-b - respecting culture and nondiscrimination.  

    With regard to A.2.a, it calls us to be culturally responsive.  Not acknowledging it could be perceived as culturally unresponsive, which is ethically problematic.  It is her right to choose her coverings, but they can have an effect, as Scott rightly mentioned about any kind of dress (MAGA hats or Harris pins).

    On the other hand, A.2.b says we can't provide prejudicial treatment.  In an adversarial case, someone could mistakenly perceive your inclusion as weaponizing her choices against her.  Then again, you are simply acknowledging in your objective report that clothing that advertises a message (her identity) will likely impact the opinions of others, either in her favor or against.  To what degree, who knows, but it has an impact.  We know that because religion is a protected class simply because it has historically been a discriminatory issue... it impacts employment.  Disability, age, gender, etc. also have an impact leading to much federal legislation, in part to draw attention to it.

    So, it seems to me that you have an ethical obligation to respond to the impacting factors (A.2.a) in order to be culturally responsive, much in the same way you would report any other kind of characteristic of an evaluee.  You have an ethical code to justify the inclusion of that information and she has law to protect her constitutional right to free speech and freedom from discrimination.  Both of those exist for good reason, because not acknowledging the full person can do more harm than good. It can avoid the harm that is potentially going on in favor of "not making waves."  I would think that as long as you are sensitive to the possibility (or likelihood) of discrimination taking place, then you are respecting her right to wear whatever she wants, even if it ultimately works against her in employment efforts. 

    If you buy this argument, then including the obvious fact that she wears a hijab would also be appropriate, not harmful, discriminatory, or unnecessarily controversial.  The problem here is to see or not see the statement she is openly displaying.  The problem for another case is whether she is responsible for the discrimination due to her choice to wear it or whether it is the employer who doesn't hire her... but again, that's a different case.

    Aaron Mertes PhD, PCLC, CRC

    Assistant Professor – University of Wisconsin - Whitewater

    CACREP Board of Directors

    www.aaronmertes.com 




    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Sensitive question

    Posted 09-12-2024 09:15
    Good Morning, Steve:
    I would fall back on our education, training and professional experience.  What is proper attire for a job interview?  If the hajib is a part of her religion and she is compelled to wear it, so be it, of course we will respect that, but a flag? In your assessment you can certainly say that based upon your education, training, and professional experience placing individuals in work, wearing a flag on your back is not proper attire for a job interview. End of story.
    And to add to Scott's list of the worst things we've seen on job interviews, I sat in on a former teacher's, now injured, interview for a call center position, sedentary, within their work restrictions, who had obviously used a computer throughout their career, who intentionally bombed the mock calls section of the interview by listening to each call twice, all the way through, "because I wanted to be certain I answered correctly." Of course this meant that he performed the tasks so slowly that he wasn't considered for the job. 
    Best,
    Michele
    --
    Michele Erbacher, MS, CRC, ABVE/F
    Erbacher Rehabilitation & Consulting
    Cell:  (716) 807-6708




    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Sensitive question

    Posted 09-12-2024 14:57

    Piggybacking on what Scott, Aaron, and Michele have said, this is Career Counseling 101 material. I'm sure you have or can find citations to support saying that a candidate who dresses or behaves in a way that may draw negative attention to themselves or may even violate an employer's dress or performance code is likely to either be intentionally or unintentionally (out of ignorance) sabotaging their job search efforts. 



    ------------------------------
    Stella Frank
    Vocational, Disability & Career Consultant
    sdoercrc@gmail.com
    Stillwater, ME United States
    ------------------------------

    Original Message