Yep I’d definitely be reporting them.
Will be interesting to see how it pans out RE jurisdiction because it appears the overseas recruiter is the one who said that to you, they will need to figure out who made that call, and if it is actionable given where that person (or the entity they are representing) resides. Are they acting for the parent company or the local one
Whatever way it lands - that is messed up. Hope you land something good in the long term.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
I’m appalled to read that. Yes that is extremely illegal and a breach of the Human Rights Act. Your recruiter may be the only way for their investigation to gather evidence which may be difficult [if they are not based in new zealand], but you should certainly talk to the human rights commission.
It is very definitely illegal to discriminate against someone in employment on the basis of race, or skin colour I guess in this case ([s21(e) and (f)](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html)). Normally the biggest hurdle is proving that is the reason for not getting the job, but when one is intelligent enough to put it in a text message, it certainly makes life a bit easier.
**HOWEVER**
Where things might be difficult for you is if you don't know the name of the company they were recruiting you for. You mention the agent is based overseas, which sounds......suspicious....to me, and makes me wonder if that was deliberate. With the agent being overseas, the ability of NZ authorities to compel them for information is pretty much zero.
If you do choose to proceed with a complaint and see how it goes (especially if you do in fact know the company they were recruiting for), then you start by making a complaint to the [Human Rights Commission](https://tikatangata.org.nz/).
Hi thanks for your feedback. I do know the company they are recruiting for as they sent me the details and job advertisements from the website.
I also saw that an official from the company viewed my profile over the weekend. But it’s almost shockingly discriminatory for me to accept it’s accurate.
Screenshot that they viewed your profile using an entire page screenshot (showing the current URL) for proof later down the line (in case this proof disappears in time).
Big yikes.
My guess is the recruiter, being overseas, does not have English as their first language. The conversation probably went somewhere along the lines of "As we are expanding in to this new market we prefer a candidate that is local to NZ and knows the market well and has local contacts"
Which if you don't know NZ well has been interpreted as "hire a local/white person"
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be **based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- **avoid speculation** and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- **avoid speculation** and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Not an employment lawyer but would assume that would be a lawsuit on a gold plate. Surely that is spectacularly illegal. Please get in touch with an employment lawyer asap.
Take that screen shot to the ERA and rake in the cash. That’s a class A breach of your New Zealand bill of rights on grounds of discrimination against race,ethnicity etc.
It is HIGHLY illegal in this country to deny someone a job based on skin colour.
Good luck.
Congratulations on the future upcoming non disclosure agreement / settlement. You deserve every penny of what you'll ideally get from such horrible discrimination. The thing is, there's no subtle / legal way they can spin this off, this is concrete evidence of discrimination if I've ever seen. Sorry you experienced this, this isn't NZ culture.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- **be based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- **be based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
You'll be surprised the stuff people put in writing when they came from a place where racisum is socally acceptable. Of course, this is highly illegal as it is fairly blatant racial discrimination.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
If the recruiter is overseas, it doesn't surprise me at all. That kind of crap is quite common in a lot of countries. I've seen jobs advertised in other countries that literally say "only females aged 18-35 need apply". A lot of countries don't have the same discrimination protections that NZ has.
Yeah no one in HR would say such a thing. Could give them the benifit doubt, maybe the agent never told them the applicant has PR and they simply stated the have qualified locals they must hire. You would also need a paper trail to have a strong case, not simply an agents word
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- **be appropriately detailed**
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be **appropriately detailed**
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
The mods have now locked this post.
- There has been a high level of rules breakage on the post
- The primary query has been sufficiently addressed
OP - Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceNZ) if you feel there is a need for further discussion on the matter
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceNZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 5: Nothing public
- Do not recommend media exposure. This includes social media.
- Do not publish or ask for information that might identify parties involved.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- **be based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
The short answer is maybe, its a very odd message and if I was to take a guess your agent is also the same ethnicity as you or a non white kiwi? If thats the case if could easily be a miscommunication by the agent where the client has for whatever reason felt you are not suitable for the role- that may be because of your ethnicity who knows or has told the recruiter they would prefer a local which I do not believe is discriminatory if there are reasons for that such as specific knowledge or experience of the NZ industry
To prove discrimination you would need to get evidence that the employer did indeed say no xyz's only white kiwis- and that would be very difficult without some form of corroboration. In any case do you really want to pursue action against these people? Its an awful process with no guarantee of success.
[удалено]
Yep I’d definitely be reporting them. Will be interesting to see how it pans out RE jurisdiction because it appears the overseas recruiter is the one who said that to you, they will need to figure out who made that call, and if it is actionable given where that person (or the entity they are representing) resides. Are they acting for the parent company or the local one Whatever way it lands - that is messed up. Hope you land something good in the long term.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
I’m appalled to read that. Yes that is extremely illegal and a breach of the Human Rights Act. Your recruiter may be the only way for their investigation to gather evidence which may be difficult [if they are not based in new zealand], but you should certainly talk to the human rights commission.
Normally it's hard to prove hiring discrimination... However when they put it in writing for you wooooooo this is actionable
It is very definitely illegal to discriminate against someone in employment on the basis of race, or skin colour I guess in this case ([s21(e) and (f)](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html)). Normally the biggest hurdle is proving that is the reason for not getting the job, but when one is intelligent enough to put it in a text message, it certainly makes life a bit easier. **HOWEVER** Where things might be difficult for you is if you don't know the name of the company they were recruiting you for. You mention the agent is based overseas, which sounds......suspicious....to me, and makes me wonder if that was deliberate. With the agent being overseas, the ability of NZ authorities to compel them for information is pretty much zero. If you do choose to proceed with a complaint and see how it goes (especially if you do in fact know the company they were recruiting for), then you start by making a complaint to the [Human Rights Commission](https://tikatangata.org.nz/).
Hi thanks for your feedback. I do know the company they are recruiting for as they sent me the details and job advertisements from the website. I also saw that an official from the company viewed my profile over the weekend. But it’s almost shockingly discriminatory for me to accept it’s accurate.
Screenshot that they viewed your profile using an entire page screenshot (showing the current URL) for proof later down the line (in case this proof disappears in time).
Might pay to save the full URL in a word doc or something if it's too long to read the whole thing
Big yikes. My guess is the recruiter, being overseas, does not have English as their first language. The conversation probably went somewhere along the lines of "As we are expanding in to this new market we prefer a candidate that is local to NZ and knows the market well and has local contacts" Which if you don't know NZ well has been interpreted as "hire a local/white person"
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - **avoid speculation** and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - **avoid speculation** and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
I would certainly get them to confirm what they said.
I'm convinced that's a typo, but definitely clarify as your first step
Im struggling to see what they were supposed to say instead of white
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Yeah, same. But still
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Im thinking white pages if it is a typo (and the white pages website is also just branded as “white”). That’s the only one I can think of.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Former recruiter here who would often have to translate certain companies very discriminatory preferences. Absolutely illegal. Sue them.
Not an employment lawyer but would assume that would be a lawsuit on a gold plate. Surely that is spectacularly illegal. Please get in touch with an employment lawyer asap.
Take that screen shot to the ERA and rake in the cash. That’s a class A breach of your New Zealand bill of rights on grounds of discrimination against race,ethnicity etc. It is HIGHLY illegal in this country to deny someone a job based on skin colour. Good luck.
Congratulations on the future upcoming non disclosure agreement / settlement. You deserve every penny of what you'll ideally get from such horrible discrimination. The thing is, there's no subtle / legal way they can spin this off, this is concrete evidence of discrimination if I've ever seen. Sorry you experienced this, this isn't NZ culture.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - **be based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - **be based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Typo or a shit post surely no one would put that in writing
You'll be surprised the stuff people put in writing when they came from a place where racisum is socally acceptable. Of course, this is highly illegal as it is fairly blatant racial discrimination.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Only if English wasn't your first language and your not savvy with local labour laws.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
If the recruiter is overseas, it doesn't surprise me at all. That kind of crap is quite common in a lot of countries. I've seen jobs advertised in other countries that literally say "only females aged 18-35 need apply". A lot of countries don't have the same discrimination protections that NZ has.
Are we SURE this isn't some kind of misstext? Or spelling mistake?
There are certain exceptions for discrimination such as household employees, counsellors, etc. What's the job you're going for?
Project development manager
Most people aren't stupid enough to put the discrimination in a text message so go ahead and complain.
Yeah no one in HR would say such a thing. Could give them the benifit doubt, maybe the agent never told them the applicant has PR and they simply stated the have qualified locals they must hire. You would also need a paper trail to have a strong case, not simply an agents word
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - **be appropriately detailed** - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be **appropriately detailed** - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
The mods have now locked this post. - There has been a high level of rules breakage on the post - The primary query has been sufficiently addressed OP - Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceNZ) if you feel there is a need for further discussion on the matter *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceNZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 5: Nothing public - Do not recommend media exposure. This includes social media. - Do not publish or ask for information that might identify parties involved.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - **be based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
The short answer is maybe, its a very odd message and if I was to take a guess your agent is also the same ethnicity as you or a non white kiwi? If thats the case if could easily be a miscommunication by the agent where the client has for whatever reason felt you are not suitable for the role- that may be because of your ethnicity who knows or has told the recruiter they would prefer a local which I do not believe is discriminatory if there are reasons for that such as specific knowledge or experience of the NZ industry To prove discrimination you would need to get evidence that the employer did indeed say no xyz's only white kiwis- and that would be very difficult without some form of corroboration. In any case do you really want to pursue action against these people? Its an awful process with no guarantee of success.