I'm not sure how this will work out for France as I'm not an expert in French law. What a coincidence, though! Last Thursday I had a somewhat heated discussion with an Italian friend about employment discrimination and the American approach.

One point of contention for us was the practice of requiring inclusion of a photo on one's CV. For me, this approach inspires a very visceral reaction because I see it as not only allowing or encouraging invidious discrimination, but ensuring it. Whereas a photo-less resume or CV might be evaluated **gasp** on the merits (let's leave aside discrimination based on names for the sake of this little entry), meaning that a prime target of discrimination might actually be called for an interview, a resume that reveals the candidate's race, age, sex, or even religion, disability status, or national origin, will not even reach consideration on the merits before being thrown away. In my mind, "backwards" isn't even a good enough word to describe this scenario. "Unreal" is a bit better. I mean, I truly am amazed that this is allowed. It's "unbelievable."

My Italian friend's approach is more "pragmatic." He would rather be weeded out through discrimination BEFORE he wastes his time showing up for an interview. After all, if someone really is a bigot, he or she will discriminate regardless of the stage in the recruitment process where the candidate's race, age, etc. becomes known. In most cases, this is axiomatic, but I'm not sure "pragmatism" of the kind my friend suggests has a place here.

I don't see this issue as one of saving people the time it would take to travel to and sit for an interview. I see it as a government's decision whether to endorse discrimination from the very beginning of the recruitment process or to allow for a first line of defense for qualified job-seekers who otherwise would not stand a chance. It's an issue of government sponsorship of discrimination in an area where it could act immediately, decisively, and painlessly. Discrimination in the rest of the recruitment process is harder to regulate (which doesn't mean that it cannot or should not be regulated), but providing a means for qualified candidates to get a proverbial foot in the door could not be simpler. And let's not forget that the candidate is not the only one whose time is "wasted." The employer's time is "wasted," and other candidates who are interviewed but rejected for reasons other than invidious discrimination probably feel as if their time has been "wasted," too.

That's just my two cents.

Oh, by the way, I'm not aware of the use of "anonymous" resumes in the States, which means that a name that reveals one's national origin is, unfortunately, still fodder for discrimination. One can still try to bring a claim for employment discrimination, though.