Question: A candidate told us they have a disability. What do we need to do? Answer from Rachel, SHRM-SCP: We recommend asking if they need an accommodation during the application process, but above all, ensure that having this information doesn’t influence your hiring decision. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide accommodations to applicants with disabilities if needed to be considered for a job unless the accommodation causes an undue hardship. If the applicant doesn’t need an accommodation, simply continue to focus on the candidate’s skills and abilities relative to the position you’re hiring for. As you’re likely aware, employers are prohibited from asking about disabilities before offering an applicant the job. As a best practice, you should be asking all candidates—not just those who disclose a disability or appear to have a disability—whether they can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. This can be as simple as adding a question to your job application. It’s important to not make assumptions about a candidate’s ability to perform their job based on their disability. If a candidate, during the post-offer stage, requests an accommodation to perform the essential functions of their job, then you would engage in the interactive process with them to determine what accommodations may be effective. This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law. Rachel has a background as an HR Generalist in a variety of industries. After completing a B.A. in Psychology, she began her HR background in employee relations, staffing and payroll. During her free time, Rachel is an avid kayaker and plans to visit every National Park during her lifetime. From HR Support Center - Legal Disclaimer : This message does not and is not intended to contain legal advice, does not address state or local law, and its contents do not constitute the practice of law or provision of legal counsel. The sender cannot be held legally accountable for actions related to its receipt.

Are you finding it difficult to fill job openings because not enough people are applying? You wouldn’t be alone. One avenue organizations are taking to expand their applicant pool is to forgo the college degree requirement and instead adopt a more inclusive, skills-based approach to hiring. Would such an approach benefit your organization? To help you answer that question, we’ll go over reasons you might want to keep or eliminate the degree requirement and outline what a skills-based alternative could look like. The Upside of the Degree Requirement For employers, a college degree is an early indicator that an applicant may have the basic knowledge and skills needed for a position. It’s safe to assume, for example, that someone with a degree in graphic design can probably do an entry-level graphic design job. A college degree is also a sign that an applicant has likely developed certain soft skills like communicating with peers, completing long-term projects, and meeting deadlines. It’s not a guarantee, of course, but it enables employers to make reasonable decisions about which applicants to advance to a phone screen or interview. The college degree requirement can also serve as a useful tool for employers overwhelmed with applicants. It discourages some people from applying, reducing the company’s applicant pool and the workload of overburdened recruiters and hiring managers. And last, but not least, some jobs really do require a degree. We’re not suggesting you throw this requirement out the window If you’re hiring a lawyer, doctor, engineer, or other professional whose licensure is likely hinged on completion of a graduate degree. The Downside of the Degree Requirement If, however, you’re hurting for applicants, the degree requirement might be working against you if it isn’t absolutely necessary. While a college education is one way people acquire the knowledge and skills they use in their job, it’s rarely the only way to gain those proficiencies. In most cases, a degree is at best a proxy for basic qualifications, not something someone materially needs to do a job. And, aside from increasing your applicant pool, there are other good reasons to eliminate it. According to a study by Harvard Business School, requiring a degree when it’s not essential “particularly hurts populations with college graduation rates lower than the national average, such as Blacks and Hispanics, age 25 years and older.” It can also raise barriers to entry for many young adults. Eliminating the degree requirement means that you’ll need some other way to screen applicants for the necessary knowledge and skills and what’s become known as “skills-based hiring” is a promising alternative. What Is Skills-Based Hiring? Skills-based hiring prioritizes asking applicants whether and to what extent they have the skills needed for the job, not where they acquired those skills or how long they’ve been using them. The existence and quality of those skills is the deciding factor in whether to hire a candidate, not years of education or work history. It makes room for people who would be able to excel in the role, but don’t have the education or work history generally expected for someone with their expertise or ability. As an example, if you were hiring someone into an HR coordinator role, you’d skip asking them if they have a degree and how long they’ve been working in HR or general administration roles. Instead, you’d start with whether they have data entry and conflict resolution skills—or whatever skills you’re looking for in particular—and then ask how they acquired those skills and how they’ve put them to use. The Challenge of Skills-Based Hiring Skills-based hiring will likely add time to your hiring process. You won’t be able to rely on degrees or years of experience as your first screening criteria. You may have to redesign your application so that it effectively asks about skills and enables applicants to tell their story. You might end up phone screening or interviewing more candidates to ascertain whether they truly have the skills they say they have. You might also have to spend more time with recruiters to ensure they know and understand which skills you are looking for and how to assess whether applicants have them. But, if you are looking to increase your candidate pool and find the best person for that role, it will be time well spent. The Advantages of Skills-Based Hiring First, skills-based hiring has the potential to align more closely with business needs because, if done right, it makes you think clearly at the outset about what skills are truly essential, what specific skills would most benefit your organization, and what skills would merely be nice to have. It also gets you thinking about the role’s evolution as the organization develops and needs change. All this can lead to better job performance, lower turnover rates, and higher employee satisfaction because employees are positioned in roles that suit their skill sets and growth aspirations. Second, skills-based hiring can widen your talent pool. By prioritizing skills over formal education or specific career achievements, you can discover candidates who you’d likely overlook despite being highly capable and a terrific fit for the role. This is especially relevant in fields where practical abilities are more important than academic qualifications and formal experience. Most employers would likely agree that they’d rather have an HR coordinator with sparkling data entry skills and the ability to put people at ease than one with a college degree and five years of experience but no typing or people skills. Finally, skills-based hiring can increase the diversity of your candidate pool. You’re more likely to evaluate candidates on their merit, reducing biases related to education, socio-economic background, or work history. This not only supports a more equitable hiring process, but also brings a broader range of perspectives and ideas to your team, enhancing creativity and problem-solving. From HR Support Center - Legal Disclaimer : This message does not and is not intended to contain legal advice, does not address state or local law, and its contents do not constitute the practice of law or provision of legal counsel. The sender cannot be held legally accountable for actions related to its receipt.

Question: Do we need to pay summer interns? Answer from Wendy, PHR: Generally, yes, though it depends on who benefits most from their work. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has adopted the “primary beneficiary test” to determine whether a worker is an employee (who must be paid in accordance with federal wage and hour law) or can be classified as an unpaid intern (a non-employee who is exempt from federal wage and hour law). If the worker is the primary beneficiary of the arrangement—as opposed to the employer—they can be classified as an unpaid intern. If the employer is the primary beneficiary, the worker must be classified as an employee and must be paid minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. To determine who the primary beneficiary is, consider the extent to which: The internship provides training that would be similar to what would be given in an educational environment, including clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions. The internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit. The internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar. The internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning. The intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern. The intern and the employer understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee. The intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the end of the internship. According to the DOL, the test is flexible, and no single factor will necessarily tip the scales. But as a practical matter, if having summer interns is saving your company money or the interns aren’t receiving some kind of academic credit, you should think very hard about classifying them as non-employees. If you’re not sure whether the worker should be classified as an unpaid intern or paid employee, the safer option would be to classify them as an employee. Misclassification can be costly. And as is always the case, you should check state law for any additional requirements. This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law. Wendy has over 20 years of experience in HR and talent acquisition. She has been writing and talking about HR for 5 years and was an HR podcast host for 4 years. Wendy has a BA from the University of South Dakota. In her spare time, she makes artisan ice cream and volunteers with her daughter's Girl Scout troops. From HR Support Center - Legal Disclaimer : This message does not and is not intended to contain legal advice, does not address state or local law, and its contents do not constitute the practice of law or provision of legal counsel. The sender cannot be held legally accountable for actions related to its receipt.

Question: We’ve generally been tolerant of harmless pranks, but recently, an employee placed a suggestive picture on a coworker’s workstation and another employee saw it and complained. How should we respond? Answer from Kyle, PHR: It sounds like this prank could have crossed the line into harassment, even though the person who was offended wasn’t necessarily the intended target. As an employer, you have an obligation to prevent and deal with harassment complaints promptly and thoroughly. To that end, follow your standard procedure to investigate the incident and take appropriate action. Be sure to document every step of your investigation and resulting actions taken so you can show you fulfilled your obligations. Having a clear record will also help you ensure similar situations are handled consistently in the future. Going forward, you could prohibit pranks of any sort, but if they remain harmless and inoffensive while also inspiring joy in the workplace, a blanket ban might not be necessary. On the other hand, if most employees don’t enjoy the pranks or they’re significantly disruptive to the workplace, it might be time to lay down some new expectations around professionalism. In either case, employees should understand what lines not to cross and that “just having fun” is no excuse for violating company policies. You can learn more about harassment on the platform. This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law. Kyle is a professional author, editor, and researcher specializing in workplace culture, retention strategies, and employee engagement. He has previously worked with book publishers, educational institutions, magazines, news and opinion websites, nationally-known business leaders, and non-profit organizations. He has a BA in English, an MA in philosophy, and a PHR certification. From HR Support Center - Legal Disclaimer : This message does not and is not intended to contain legal advice, does not address state or local law, and its contents do not constitute the practice of law or provision of legal counsel. The sender cannot be held legally accountable for actions related to its receipt.

Question: What are whistleblower protections? Answer from Laura, MA, SHRM-CP: Whistleblowing occurs when an employee reports wrongdoing (dangerous, illegal, or unethical activity or practices by the company or its employees) either directly to the employer or to an outside authority. Many laws, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, consider whistleblowing a protected activity, meaning you can’t lawfully retaliate against an employee for making such a report. If you were to retaliate, for instance, by disciplining the employee or excluding them from promotional opportunities, the employee could file a complaint. You can reduce the risk of employees “blowing the whistle” to an outside agency or authority by establishing clear internal channels for employees to report issues, addressing these reports promptly and fairly, and having zero tolerance for retaliation. Employees should feel safe bringing concerns to your attention and be able to trust that you’ll respond appropriately. If they fear that they’ll be punished for raising issues or concerns internally, they may opt instead to report the matter externally. This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law. Laura has 9 years of HR experience, spanning public- and private-sector work in the education, transit, and insurance industries. After completing a B.A. in Asian Studies from Knox College, she received her M.A. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from University of New Haven along with graduate-level certificates in Human Resources Management and Psychology of Conflict Management. Laura enjoys fencing, baking, and cross-stitching. From HR Support Center - Legal Disclaimer : This message does not and is not intended to contain legal advice, does not address state or local law, and its contents do not constitute the practice of law or provision of legal counsel. The sender cannot be held legally accountable for actions related to its receipt.