race and national origin issue

[ElleMD]

If the ethics line is basically just a way to report it to HR, fine. If it is like most where you remain anonymous to them, it is questionable at best. I'm not sure why you assume that HR will not take it seriously or only will if reported through the ethics line.

The EEOC is not interested in playing referee for employees who won't even try to resolve disputes themselves. Most lawyers aren't going to do so either unless you pay them enough, then they will do just about anything you want. Do not expect running straight to a lawyer to go over well at your job. If you fear going to HR, that will be nothing compared to getting a letter of rep from a lawyer about a problem you never brought to their attention. Have you met with your supervisor to discuss the assignments and why they were assigned as they were? Or, better, what you can do to increase your skills and chances to get better assignments?

Not that I disbelieve you entirely, but there are some aspects of your complaint that you will need to answer for. For instance, how do you know the manager won't even look at the resumes of those from other races? How would the manager even know what race the candidate is from a resume? How do you know the racial make up of the candidate pool? Or how the various candidates interviewed? Is the racial make up reflective of the general population of qualified applicants in your area? For example, if you live in Brownsville, TX, expect that the majority of your employees are going to be of Hispanic origin. 90+% are Hispanic so a claim that there aren't many Asians or African Americans hired isn't going to be terribly noteworthy on its own. Now if all the new hires happen to be Asian, and they are only 1% of the population, then you have at least an inference that something unsavory may be afoot.

Certainly being given worse assignments can be illegal if the reason is race, but again, you will need to be able to articulate a reason you believe race is the reason you are chosen for these assignments and not one a million legal reasons. You need not share it here, but for what reason do you think that of the possible explanations for the assignments and hired being what they are, race is most likely reason? That will be the second question asked after what you did to resolve the problem internally.

 

[army judge]

I'm told that race, rather ETHNICITY or NATIONALITY can often be discerned by reading a name.
In some cases, a short conversation with the prospect can lead some to the conclusion they desire.
I've also been told, by more than one person, that some companies aren't so confidential with the self reporting EEO data they solicit.
I can't say for sure, as I classify this as hearsay at best, rumor at worst.
It is entirely possible.

 

[ElleMD]

That might be true in some cases but having done recruiting in an international environment, far more often than not, you can't tell. Not definitively. Women's names in particular are notoriously unreliable as their last names are more likely to not be their birth name.

 

[army judge]

That might be true in some cases but having done recruiting in an international environment, far more often than not, you can't tell. Not definitively. Women's names in particular are notoriously unreliable as their last names are more likely to not be their birth name.

That is somewhat true, except many countries (unlike the US) are for more homogenous.
The surname may change by marriage, but fewer marry outside their birth groups.
I suppose that's how the ones that do this (if any actually do) make it work for them.

 

[rcris]

The ethics line is a msg to management which includes hr but has the option for anonymity. The idea is that I think approaching hr is like the last straw and want to do once I have another job. The only thing in my review that needs improvement is communication and leadership both of which are not true relative to peers and even if they are, they won't approve me to take training to overcome them. For example I have been showing improving results addressing their concerns which are quite trivial or an year. Then they hire another guy with little background and he starts going in some direction until we find that's its of not much use. Then suddenly in a month the manager approves it and agrees that my results can't be improved much. How can this result in my comp reduced. He still wants me to (only one) to continue in this dead project.