An anonymous reader sends word of a fascinating article about a “diversity probe” of leading New York City advertising agencies.
Blasting the New York industry’s hiring practices as “an embarrassment for a diverse city,” City Councilman Larry Seabrook said he will call hearings within the next three months and likely subpoena industry executives for a grilling on the subject.
Agencies won’t be the only ones called to testify. “We can ask [clients] for their positions on diversity and how they feel about working with agencies that aren’t diverse,” added Mr. Seabrook.
….
The hearings are the latest twist in a year-and-a-half-long investigation by New York City’s Commission on Human Rights, spearheaded by Human Rights Commissioner Patricia Gatling, that has put under the microscope 17 of the city’s agencies, including BBDO, Saatchi & Saatchi and Ogilvy & Mather. On Feb. 14, Ms. Gatling welcomed help from the City Council civil-rights committee that Mr. Seabrook chairs to further the probe.
It’s not clear, however, whether the problem at these agencies is that they discriminate in hiring, or that they don’t.
Here is the relevant portion of the New York City Human Rights Law that would seem to provide jurisdiction over the hiring practices at the agencies:
§8-107 Unlawful discriminatory practices. 1. Employment. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
(a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, sexual orientation or alienage or citizenship status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
Hmm, that’s funny. I’ve re-read this provision several times, but I can’t find in it any requirement for an employer to have a “diverse” workforce, whatever that might mean. On the contrary, if words have meaning (an increasingly doubtful proposition, I suppose), I think “any person” who was not hired because of his or her race would have a strong cause of action.
The Q-Word
No, silly, the Q-Word is quota, not quality, even though no one seems willing to speak it out loud.
One attorney representing several large agencies said that discussions continue “on how the agencies can seek to attain the same objectives the commission is trying to—that is, to find the most reasonable way to proceed toward increasing the number of minorities in ad agencies.”
….
Another executive familiar with the matter said at one point the commission asked one of the agencies involved whether it would be willing to accept a “vague, general” agreement on hiring a particular of number of minorities. The agency wanted more information on the possible agreement before committing, but got none.
A third executive said that last fall the commission presented a plan to agencies that would have required them to reach established goals on hiring, promotion and retention, but no agency agreed to it. The commission will not comment on the talks.
Under what authority, however, can the human rights agency or the city council pressure employers to “[increase] the number of minorities in ad agencies” in the absence of evidence of discrimination against them?
And finally, what is the difference between a “‘vague, general’ agreement on hiring a particular number of minorities” or a requirement “to reach established goals on hiring, promotion and retention” and a — prepare yourself; I’m going to say the word! — quota?
Actually, John, the items that stood out for me were “actual or perceived age” and “alienage or citizenship status.” Read literally, this seems to say that NYC allows, nay positively mandates, child labor, and thinks that not hiring non-citizens constitutes a human rights violation. Of course the latter may be construed as mandating the hiring only of “documented” non-citizens. Somehow I doubt it will be.
I’ve noticed that what citizens want from the law is predictable certainty, but what lawyers, judges, and legislators want is vagueness. I wonder why that could be?