There was a recent case involving a Las Vegas resort seeking to hire someone in their Human Resources department that discusses how employers can permissibly screen out applicants lacking the minimal qualifications for the job at issue. In this case, BALCA reversed a denial based on an employer’s failure to interview two applicants who had considerable experience but did NOT hold the required degree (in HR). The main idea is that employers are not required to interview applicants who lack a primary job requirement. In this case, it was a specific degree, but really it could be anything (a license, other specific capabilities, etc.).
The Parball decision can be found here. Here is the main quote:
In this case, we recognize that the two applicants, and in particular P.R.1, have substantial job-related experience which could support a conclusion that they might qualify for the position even absent the specified degree and therefore, superficially, it might seem that further inquiry was warranted. That, however, is not what the case law requires. As first enunciated in Gorchev, the obligation to interview is triggered when the U.S. applicant meets the principal requirements for the position but lacks some subsidiary skill that might not be listed on the resume or could be learned through a reasonable period of on-the-job training. These are not the facts here. These two applicants lacked a specified bachelor’s degree and therefore no further inquiry was required. Accordingly, the CO erred in denying certification in this matter.
So, in other words, one of the applicants was almost certainly “qualified” using the real world definition, but not the PERM definition of that word; the law is clear that educational requirements set by employers (or other requirements) can be taken as firm and anyone failing to meet them may lawfully be screened out.
We originally published this blog entry here: https://www.permlabor.com/blog/screening-of-us-applicants-based-on-job-requirements