Applicant Three, a fresh college graduate, stands a chance of getting the job.Even though an initial investment in her accommodation may seem high, a future return on investment is highly probable. Her entry salary requirement is relatively lower ($ 25,000) as opposed to the other two candidates ($ 30,000 and 35,000). As a youth, the company can expect her services for a lengthy period of time as she adapts and grows with the company. Her out-going nature means she can comfortably work in a team which she can motivate to greater potential hence boosting the company’s rate of productivity.
Moreover, the legal issues in play also obligate the company to consider her. For instance, the Americans with Disability Act under Title I while prohibiting discrimination against disabled person who qualify, requires that employers avail reasonable accommodation to employees with disability as long as it does not cause undue hardships (Guerin, 2011).
Applicant one, will not be the likely choice since her future relations with the company are bleak.Moreover, the fact that she might be planning to have a huge family means that the company has to prepare for her pregnancy medical insurance cover, an added cost to the company. Pynes (2008) adds that employers have an obligation to give leave and pregnancy benefits such as medical insurance cove since they are protected by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
In conclusion, I will not consider employing applicant two, the 40 plus Muslim male, because his presence at the company will pose some threat to other employees and clientsconsidering the recent attacks by an extremist.The fact that he is able to renovate a run-down Victorian all on his own brings to question the source of his income. Besides, his salary requirement is relatively high.