Is is illegal for a job to specify a candidate's sex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a lab position working in a doctor's office.

Why do you prefer a male employee?.

I don't. It was a position I was interested in applying to until I got down to the bullet point about male candidate only.

Apply anyway.
I'm not an employment lawyer, but I don't think it's legal to only hire men for a lab position. They can pick a male candidate and claim he was the best person who applied, and you can't prove discrimination in that situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apply anyway.

I probably will.

Let us know if you get an interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a lab position working in a doctor's office.

A doctor in our town that specializes in male issues advertises an all-male staff. So there must be some way to do it.

It's not advertised as that type of clinic.

They might need a male as they have a female already and patient can request a specific gender nurse/doctor

[Anonymous]

Is 'Only Male Applicants Need Apply' Legal?
http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml?id=534354558

"The Act does, however, provide a singular exception to this rule by permitting job advertisements or postings limiting applicants to a certain religion, national origin or sex if it can be demonstrated that such a designation is a bona fide occupational qualification ("BFOQ") for the job or position in question (note that race or color may never constitute a justified basis for restrictive hiring under Title VII). One area of employment where courts have found sex to constitute a BFOQ within certain, limited factual contexts is healthcare. See, e.g., Veleanu v. Beth Isr. Med. Ctr., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13948, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2000) (finding that "healthcare presents unique circumstances that may justify reasonable efforts to accommodate a patient's expression of preference of doctor by gender"). However, the employer carries the burden of proving the existence of a BFOQ, and courts have long construed the BFOQ exception exceptionally narrowly."