The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is currently investigating whether or not employers and recruiters can legally require job candidates to be currently employed.   The EEOC has pointed out the fact that “unemployed need not apply” hiring practices may be illegal if they disproportionately impact protected classes. In recent studies,it has been discovered that job seekers over 40 years old and those who arenon-white are more likely to be unemployed than younger, white workers.Therefore, when recruiters and employers refuse to consider job candidates who are currently unemployed they may disproportionately exclude those two protected classes of workers. But excluding unemployed job candidates from consideration isn’t just risky in a legal sense, it can also be bad business.Let’s take a look at a few reasons why:

1. By excluding unemployed job candidates from consideration, recruiters/employers run the risk of missing golden opportunities to hire talented candidates whose unemployed status has nothing to do with their quality. Workers may be out of work for several reasons, illness, family obligations, or a change in careers. Being unemployed doesn’t necessarily equal being less qualified.
2. By excluding unemployed job candidates from consideration, recruiters/employers may inadvertently lengthen the time it will take to find the right candidate who is willing to accept compensation at a level the employer can afford.  Many currently employed job candidates may be highly desirable but they are often very expensive.
3. When a recruiter/employer runs an ad which tells unemployed individuals to not apply, it can leave a bad impression. Currently, there is a bit of a public backlash against employers and recruiters who exclude the unemployed from consideration. Employers and recruiters could experience tarnishing of their brand if they continue to exclude unemployed job.