You may be surprised to learn that in early March of 2004, after several years of deliberation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in conjunction with the Departments of Labor (DOL) and Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Personnel Management, announced a proposed set of recordkeeping provisions concerning who is a job applicant in the context of the Internet and related technologies (www.eeoc.gov/press/3-3-04.html). Following a period of time for public comment, these provisions are likely to serve as "guidance" in interpreting the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/29cfr1607_00.html), and thus be used by the EEOC, as well as others (e.g., DOL) in challenging companies' hiring and promotion practices. In this column, I will briefly summarize these guidelines as they are currently written. In the next eNewsletter, I will describe some of the implications of these provisions.

The essence of these provisions (edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-4090.htm) is that:

"In order for an individual to be an applicant in the context of the Internet and related electronic data processing technologies, the following must have occurred:

1. the employer has acted to fill a particular position;
2. the individual has followed the employer's standard procedures for submitting applications; and
3. the individual has indicated an interest in the particular position."

The provisions offer several examples to help clarify these standards. In explaining the first two points, the provisions describe a company that searches an applicant database in order to fill two vacancies. Based on this search and a follow-up inquiry by the employer, 100 of the applicants respond with interest, but only 25 are interviewed. According to the provisions, those 100 people who responded in a timely way would be considered applicants.

On the other hand, the provisions indicate that certain individuals will not count as applicants under the three "prongs" listed above. For example, individuals who merely post their resume in a third party resume bank or on a personal website do not count as applicants, because they probably don't meet point #2 or point #3. If, however, the employer contacted these individuals and offered them the opportunity to apply, those candidates who followed the application process are likely to have met points #2 and #3, and thus they would be counted as applicants.

To summarize, the provisions are not particularly radical or surprising. In fact, I would assert that these provisions are quite similar to the way in which traditional, "paper" applicants are counted. However, as I will describe in the next eNewsletter, there is more to these provisions than meets the eye. If you aren't careful, you may get a ticket. Stay tuned!