In 2003, 32% of external hires came from the Internet in 2003, with more than two-thirds of those coming through a company's Web site, according to Gerry Crispin and Mark Mehler, principals of CareerXroads, a consulting company in Kendall Park, N.J. that publishes an annual guide to job boards. The rapid growth of Internet recruiting in the late 1990s and technological ease of sending resumes challenged employers to manage their record keeping in these areas.

To demonstrate compliance with federal discrimination law, covered employers must track applicants' race, gender, and ethnicity. The existing record keeping guidance regarding race, gender, and ethnicity set forth under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), which was issued in the 1970s with follow-ups in 1979 and 1980, did not adequately address electronic recruitment issues.

In July 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), along with the Departments of Labor and Justice and the Office of Personnel Management, began to consider whether supplemental information about the definition of "applicant" should be provided. After three years, and several delays, the proposed guidelines were announced and published in the March 4 Federal Register. According to the proposal, three conditions must be met for an individual to be considered an applicant when using the Internet or other electronic means (e.g., e-mail, third party job banks, and applicant tracking systems):

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

In 1979, the agencies clarified the UGESP by defining "applicant" broadly as "a person who has indicated an interest in being considered for hiring, promotion, or other employment opportunities." This definition proved insufficient, especially with the advent of electronic recruiting. In May 2003, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) issued a public policy statement stating that the definition "has resulted in various, ever-changing and inconsistent interpretations."

While some in the human resource community call the proposed guidelines a good first step in clarifying the term �applicant', criticism has already surfaced from the employer community. Chief among them is that the proposal is limited to electronic recruiting and it does not limit the definition to candidates who meet an employer's minimum qualifications for open positions. Other critiques question why the same definition could not apply to paper applications and why the proposed guidelines do not provide a new definition for "applicant" generally.

Members of the public may file written comments on the proposal on or before May 3, 2004. Written comments about the proposed guidance should be sent to Frances M. Hart, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10th Floor, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. The Executive Secretariat will accept comments by fax at (202) 663-4114; only comments of six pages or fewer will be accepted. For further information contact Carol Miaskoff, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at (202) 663- 4637.

The full text of the proposed definition can be found in the March 4 Federal Register, or online here.

Questions and answers about the proposed definition are available on EEOC's Web site.

Corinne Marasco is editor of ChemHR and an associate editor at Chemical & Engineering News specializing in human resource and workplace management issues.