If they converted 1160 "qualified on 'paper'" applicants to (say) 205 next round of interview applicants and eliminated all of one ethnicity in that process then statistics are a fine way to show bias. 25 and 7 ultimate positions aren't enough to use statistics alone to make the case, particularly when 11 out of the 25 and one out of the 7 were asian. So, the number of cases where they claim bias did the decision making are 10 or fewer. I'm not saying that the department of labor is wrong. But, I am saying that it's idiotic to use only statistical mathematics to argue about 10 decisions. They need additional evidence of bias.
Agreed. Side-note and would love to hear your thoughts on this (this is a real question, not some BS or trick)...
Pre-question info - if you have 100 applicants; 40 asian; 30 white; 20 hispanic; 10 misc... They all have resumes that show that they meet the direct technical knowledge specifications for a position (e.g. Oracle Database Migration, Windows Server 2008+ administration, etc) but have an interesting little logic which is perfectly valid in there: "able to think outside the box".
All 100 are interviewed. It is confirmed and even on video that out of all of the applicants, when given a complex logic question that doesn't have a "book answer", 15 of the whites were creative and even cunning, 9 of the asians were, 5 hispanic were, and 1 misc. was... You interview another time and find that out of all of the ones that were capable, 5 old whites, 1 asian, no hispanics, and and nix the misc. were capable of completing a logical jump while weighing risk and sometimes even simplifying the issue to the point of realizing that it didn't require analysis/etc. Fact: the 5 old whites had experience, hands-on and not. The asian had only read in college text how stuff works (etc etc) and didn't get the concept of what was being analyzed.
Question - if you have a deadline and need people right now to solve a major problem that you company could go under if it didn't solve, you decide to hire the 5 whites and the asian, even though the asian was incapable of meeting the non-specific requirement of essentially "thinking abstract/outside the box" with actual demonstrable sessions... Do you feel it's fair for your company to get a complaint and investigation which shows you were not meeting the required numbers for "equality"?
I ask the question because I think it's the biggest load of horse shit in employment. In places I've worked, the residency of the surrounding area was primarily white. Another was a nice mix of all. Another was a mix of all but for IT positions, 90% were white applicants; the rest didn't even have the education nor were they interested. I've been denied a position I was a perfect match for (I had inside info) and a young African-Ameican was hired who didn't meet all of the qualifications and was basically asking others questions every day to figure out how to do their work because it was something they were completely unfamiliar with. They didn't ever "get it" and were terminated for "lack of work" just to avoid BS when, really, they were canned because they weren't getting work done without draining from the resources from the rest of the team.
I don't know if I'm missing something that's key and obvious or if I'm just a casualty of reality. I fail to understand why a company must risk / essentially waste money to meet racial requirements when the applicants that are hired to meet said requirements DO NOT. Don't even come close. At the same time, a perfectly qualified person who is looking for work after moving back to their "home" city after spending years in other cities seeing that it wasn't 'for them' is denied a job they are perfectly qualified for and the interviewers loved. To get hit with that shit and be expected to feel there is "equality" is complete, said above, horse shit. I get sick to my stomach thinking about it because the position was a dream job, not just a perfect job I was qualified for.