TheLadders is being sued in New York federal court in a class-action consumer lawsuit alleging that for years it falsely claimed it offered only high-paying jobs.
Brought by an Arkansas woman representing perhaps as many as a million customers of the job board, the suit says:
From its inception until September, 2011, TheLadders scammed its customers into paying for its job board service by misrepresenting itself to be ‘a premium job site for only $100k+ jobs, and only $100k+ talent.’ In fact, TheLadders sold access to purported ‘$100k+’ job listings that (1) did not exist, (2) did not pay $100k+, and/or (3) were not authorized to be posted on TheLadders by the employers.
According to the suit, many of the jobs offered on TheLadders were scraped from other sites with no attempt at verifying how much they paid or even if they were current.
The suit, filed yesterday by the New York class action firm of Bursor & Fisher, was reported by recruiting consultant and blogger Nick Corcodilos. He’s posted a copy of the lawsuit here.
TheLadders issued this statement in response to news of the suite:
We just learned about this yesterday afternoon, and have put it in the hands of our counsel to resolve. We remain steadfast in our commitment to providing the best job-matching service, while serving as the fastest-growing source for professional jobs. In fact, we’re focused on migrating our members to our new online experience, featuring Scout, by April 1, as well as launching our free native iOS app. We continue to be a free resource for recruiters and employers to help them find the right person for the right job.
Five specific counts are alleged in the class action suit: keep reading…
Love is all around us today. And not just in the hearts and cupids and balloons that decorate countless offices.
CareerBuilder says there’s a pretty good chance some of your co-workers are dating each other. Four in 10 workers have had — or are having — an office romance, according to the company’s annual survey of 4,216 workers. And 30% of them have married an office mate.
For human resource managers, such news is more heartache than heart throb.
“Relationships between co-workers can, and often do, end in breakups. And these breakups can be nasty,” says Mary Hladio, president of Ember Carriers Leadership Group. “Worst-case scenario, these breakups lead the rejected partner to file a sexual harassment claim against the employer. Businesses still have to protect themselves and their employees through clearly defined company protocol.” keep reading…
For the past 30 years I’ve been on a kick to ban traditional skills- and experience-based job descriptions. The prime reason: they’re anti-talent and anti-diversity, aside from being terrible predictors of future success.
Some naysayers use the legal angle as their excuse for maintaining the status quo. keep reading…
In early 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of Legal Counsel issued updated guidance regarding the handling of criminal history checks in the course of background screening. Furthermore, the EEOC has announced it will aggressively pursue, as class actions, claims of discrimination that arise as a result of criminal history checks. Although the 2012 guidance clarifies long-standing EEOC policies, it is particularly involved — and initially can be confusing for HR professionals and recruiters, alike. keep reading…
co-authored by Roger G. Trim, a shareholder in the Denver office of Ogletree Deakins
As of January 2013, 18 states and the District of Columbia have laws on the books legalizing the use of medical marijuana. A number of additional states have gone even further by passing laws decriminalizing or eliminating jail time for possession of small amounts of marijuana, regardless of whether the marijuana was for medical use. Finally, two states — Colorado and Washington — passed laws on November 6, 2012, affirmatively legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. Many employers are concerned about what these marijuana laws mean for them and whether they need to make any changes to their drug policies in light of recent developments. keep reading…
There was that Kixeye-Zynga battle I mentioned this week. Now, the U.S. government is suing Ebay, saying it agreed with Intuit not to hire from each other.
More on that here.
For its part, you may remember Intuit has been part of a legal case like this before.
Remember that cover-your-kids-ears video I mentioned back in August? That was from the gaming company Kixeye, who’s apparently involved in a countersuit against Zynga, involving a Zynga lawsuit against Kixeye.
More about the case where “Kixeye is asking the court to prohibit Zynga from interfering in its right to recruit, among other things” here.
You are ready to hire, but before you start slinging out job postings consider these seven questions.
How fast do you want the candidate? Many hiring managers say they need the candidate right away but drag their feet responding to qualified candidates to set up interviews. Lengthy delays in the recruiting process may convey to the candidate your organization is not interested in them and they may take another offer. If you are planning on being on vacation, out of town, or just unavailable, then this should be clear to your recruiters from the start so they can best establish the time frame expectations with your candidates. keep reading…
If your employer does business with the federal government, you already know — or should know — the rules about Internet hiring.
You know the four criteria for defining an Internet applicant are:
- An expression of interest (as in sending in an application);
- Meets the basic qualifications (education, years of experience, geography, etc.);
- You “considered” the individual for a job;
- The person never withdraws from consideration.
And you know about the recordkeeping requirements.
Now comes clarifications of these rules from the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs that won’t make life any easier, but which do, at least, make it clearer what records to keep and who is responsible for keeping them. keep reading…
California is about to become the third state to prohibit employers from asking employees or job seekers for access to their social media postings.
Without dissent, the California Senate approved AB1844, the privacy measure, Monday. It now requires an Assembly vote and the Governor’s signature before it takes effect. The Assembly vote is likely this week and is almost perfunctory, since it has already once passed there without dissent.
Backed by some of the state’s largest unions and the California Chamber of Commerce, the bill is similar to those adopted in Illinois and Maryland. Illinois’ bill was approved earlier this month and takes effect with the New Year. Maryland’s takes effect October 1. keep reading…
An IT recruiting watchdog group says some staffing companies are abusing the U.S. visa program, advertising jobs that may not even exist, and limiting applicants to non-citizens.
“The public is led to believe that companies can’t find Americans to fill high-tech jobs when, in fact, they are not searching for Americans — as these ads show,” said Donna Conroy, a founder of Bright Future Jobs and author of “No Americans Need Apply.”
Her report details an analysis of 100 IT ads, posted on tech job board Dice.com, which all include language referencing various visa programs, and which, Conroy said in an interview, are phrased as “code for foreign workers only.”
The Bright Future Jobs analysis of the ads found 37 percent of them made no mention of IT job terms or skills in the ad title. Instead, they contained only references to visa types, says Conroy’s report. “These 37 ads also repeated these USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services) terms in the skills section,” says the report.
The balance of the ads all included visa terms, with many restricting applicants to those with H1-B visas (work visas) or with work permits granted to foreign students attending U.S. colleges and universities. keep reading…
Did you hear News Corp. may buy Monster? How about how Manpower is pitching webinars to keep HR professionals out of jail? And, if that’s not enough to get you reading this, then try the cliche-riddled video entitled S*** Recruiters Say.
To answer our first question: We hadn’t heard the news about News Corp. and Monster since 2005 or maybe 2006, when we hacked old Rupert’s voicemail. Back then, his password was $$$$, which got us a few messages from Andy McKelvey explaining how you do this thing with the calendar and everybody gets rich off the options.
Now cometh The New York Times to report that in the breakup of News Corp., it might assign things it doesn’t own to a new publishing division. We are not making that up. The Times said: keep reading…
A recent survey reported that nearly half of all employers conduct social media background checks on job candidates. This practice has included requiring candidates to disclose their usernames, passwords, and other credentials that provide access to their Facebook and Twitter accounts, blogs, e-mail, and other Internet content for the prospective employer’s review.
Federal and state legislators have responded with a flurry of efforts to prohibit employers from requiring candidates to disclose their social network credentials. These efforts have included calling for federal investigations about the practice, introducing bills in Congress that would prohibit the practice, and numerous state legislators introducing and passing legislation that prohibits employers from requiring candidates to disclose their access credentials to the content posted on social media cites.
What should recruiters and hiring managers do? keep reading…
Spokeo, a website full of data on consumers — job candidates — is paying $800,000 to settle U.S. Federal Trade Commission charges about the way it marketed the profiles to HR people, recruiters, and background-checking companies, allegedly without the proper consumer protections.
A U.S. Justice Department document says, “in its marketing and advertising, the company has promoted the use of its profiles as a factor in deciding whether to interview a job candidate or whether to hire a candidate after a job interview. Spokeo purchased thousands of online advertising keywords including terms targeting employment background checks, applicant screening, and recruiting. Spokeo ran online advertisements with taglines to attract recruiters and encourage HR professionals to use Spokeo to obtain information about job candidates’ online activities.”
What the government’s getting at is that it feels Spokeo is a consumer reporting agency. And with that comes certain responsibilities. And, the feds say, Spokeo didn’t meet those responsibilities: things like making sure the information is accurate, as well as telling recruiters about their consumer-protection obligations (like what you need to know if you’re going to reject someone based on what you see on Spokeo).
More here and below.
The company that powers campus recruiting services, including NACElink, is under investigation by the FBI for allegedly attempting to hack into the computer systems of two competitors.
The investigation doesn’t involve NACE, the National Association of Colleges and Employers. Nor is there any evidence that NACElink was ever hacked or that any attempt was made to illegally access the system. However, Marilyn Mackes, executive director of the nonprofit association, says the organization is monitoring the situation and has been sending periodic updates to its member schools and employers.
“Is NACE going to be looking out for the interests of its members,” Mackes said rhetorically. “Of course it is.”
At this point, she says, it is “kind of premature” for the organization to make any decisions about the hosting of its career services network. keep reading…
Last week the EEOC issued an updated policy on the use of arrest and criminal records in hiring decisions.
As employment attorney Ron Chapman explained in a post last week, the enforcement guidance “summarizes the EEOC’s long-held position that employers’ reliance on arrest and conviction records may have a disparate impact on individuals because of their race or national origin.”
“This is an opportune time for employers to reexamine their background-check policies and practices,” Chapman suggests.
Have you? Even if your website and job applications have been wiped clean of references to — or never mentioned — criminal records, you may still have a problem. If you use outside recruiters, do you know what your vendors are doing? keep reading…
On April 25, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued an updated Enforcement Guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The Guidance summarizes the EEOC’s long-held position that employers’ reliance on arrest and conviction records may have a disparate impact on individuals because of their race or national origin. Although not legally binding, the Guidance provides key insight into how the EEOC views the use of criminal records when screening applicants. keep reading…
Political, legal, and benefits junkies have probably read and heard just about everything, pro or con, about the health-care case recently argued in front of the Supreme Court. What’s not been said as much is what this means to employers once the court rules the way it does.
Ogletree Deakins’ Thomas M. Christina, who helps clients through the process of establishing and operating benefit plans, and who has counseled employers on the health care law, talks with me about what the upcoming decision may mean for recruiting and human resources — depending, of course, on just what that decision is.
Christina is a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Associate Deputy Attorney General. The video’s about eight minutes, below. keep reading…
Today at the ERE Expo in San Diego, Mary Wright, general counsel at Ogletree Deakins, and Michael Nader, also an Ogletree attorney, took a stab at some of recruiters’ top-of-mind legal issues. Here are some of the ones that came up in the open discussion, and some of Wright and Nader’s thoughts. keep reading…
Facebook, and potentially other social media as well, can be used to assess a person’s potential for job success.
That not-so-surprising conclusion is reported in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, and comes out of two studies — one dealing with academic performance, the other with job performance — conducted on college campuses in Indiana, Illinois, and at Auburn University.
What is surprising about the study is that a group of modestly trained evaluators could better predict success after spending a few minutes on a Facebook profile than could a self-assessment of personality traits often used by industry.
“SNW (social networking websites) ratings correlated with job performance, hirability, and academic performance criteria,” the researchers concluded, “and the magnitude of these correlations was generally larger than for self-ratings.” keep reading…