Topic: Hiring and the EEOC

Hi Everyone,

I'm new to multifamilyinsiders.com. I hope that I'm posting this question in the right spot. We are interviewing a few people for a leasing agent position. The property owners have instructed us to give preference to applicants willing to move into their apartments if all else is equal. It seems to me that this could possibly be discriminatory. What are your thoughts?

Here in Oregon, most management companies require personnel to live on-site as a condition of employment. I don't think they would be able to do this if it were not legal. They don't do it for any discriminatory reason. If there is a fire or similar emergency, it's very important to be close by. I've also seen other companies that also require their employees to live within a short time or distance away.

The best thing to do is check the law where the position is located.

It isn't discriminatory; it is a condition of employment. A lot of companies insist someone from maintenance and/or someone from the office live onsite. It is no more discriminatory than hiring someone who has experience with your software over someone who does not. As a point of fact, this is usually a part of the salary calculation in the overall compensation package (so it isn't even really free as the employer/employee are paying taxes on the rent credit/deduction.)