Do you truly mean “MINIMUM qualifications” – as distinguished by law (OFCCP regulation 41 CFR 60 – 1.3, within the LONG definition of “Internet Applicant”) from “BASIC qualifications”? Since you made reference to the documentation webinar, I’m going to assume you mean BASIC qualifications. BIG difference! [A difference that really matters for purposes of certain record keeping obligations is the duty to solicit race, sex and ethnicity information, in general for government contractors, only from those who meet the definition of “Internet Applicant” – which may be a small percentage of the masses of people who need only “press a button” to apply for each job. This is also a difference that really matters with respect to the annual analysis of selection decisions that a contractor must prepare and must submit to the OFCCP in response to a notice that the establishment has been selected for a compliance review.] “BASIC qualifications are those which the agency summarizes as “…noncomparative, objective and which are relevant to the particular position [filled]”; they must also be “advertised or established in advance [of making any selection decisions for the particular position”]. The agency also provides a number of helpful FAQs on its website. With specific reference to “Basic Qualifications” see https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/faqs/iappfaqs.htm#Q1BQa. As distinguished from “BASIC qualifications”, a contractor’s “MINIMUM qualifications” might include, for example, a passing score on a pre-employment test whereas the definition of “BASIC” qualifications specifically EXCLUDES such tests (whether on line or administered on site) from that term. Basic qualifications also EXCLUDE those that are “comparative” (e.g. “must be one of the top five applicants”) and/or “subjective” (e.g. “must be ambitious”). And while these examples of “MINIMUM qualifications” also do not have to be ADVERTISED in advance they certainly can be. And, as a practical matter, basic qualifications must be ESTABLISHED in advance (and communicated to all the individuals who evaluate job seekers’ qualifications!!) or the employer is almost certainly going to treat job seekers differently as it goes thru the assessment process day after day, perhaps week after week. There are other elements for which information will only be available to the contractor if it asks…it’s not going to be on a resume... that MATTER when it comes to triggering recordkeeping and analysis requirements. For example, “date available to start work”. If the contractor has a job it advertises in February and needs to fill quickly, it will not be able to do an early elimination from the screening process – regardless of qualifications –of the person who won’t be available until August UNLESS IT ASKS THE QUESTION up front and before making a substantive assessment. Similarly, unless it compels each job seeker to COMMIT to identifying a specific position (or positions) for which recruitment is underway the contractor has created for itself significant additional record keeping hurdles and analytical integrity issues: for which “particular” position was the job seeker’s “basic qualifications” assessed. As to the specific “basic qualifications” – as well as other elements of a resume – the contractor is much more likely to learn what it wants to know versus what the job seeker wants to tell you if it asks specific and pointed questions: “how many years…”, “how many dollars in budget responsibility…”, “how many employees supervised”; “did your college course work include a study of fiber optics”, “Have you ever had final responsibility for preparing your department’s budget? When?”. Furthermore, there are other elements of a definition of “applicant” – Internet or otherwise – that aren’t a part of the “qualifications for a particular job” assessment, including whether the job seeker's resume/application/on-line application is even legible. Sometimes it is not…an assessment can’t be made because the document or record simply isn’t legible/readable. (While infrequent, system failures can also "mangle" a record to illegibility) The contractor needs a disposition code to “dispose of” such a job seeker who might – as it turns out in court – have superior “basic qualifications – the employer simply couldn’t decipher what they were! Or the job seeker is an employee who has not been in his or her current position long enough, or whose absenteeism is unacceptable, to be eligible for consideration. This isn't an assessment of the person's skills, knowledge or ability to do the job -- any more than "legal to hire" -- is such an assessment; it's simply the employer's rule -- or the law as the case may be. Use a discrete disposition code to make it easy to exclude such individuals from data which are captured for any discrimination analyses. Asking questions about “availability” FOR THE PARTICULAR POSITION is the only way to find out if the person is truly seeking the job you are trying to fill! “Are you willing to work occasional overtime?”; “Are you available for frequent overtime?” “Are you willing to travel for periodic work at another company location?” “Do you have a preference for shift (Day, Afternoon or Night)?” Is there any shift you do not wish to work for whatever reason (Day, Afternoon or Night)?” Obviously, there is the potential for “disparate impact” as well as disparate treatment with respect to such terms and conditions of a job. But if treatment is consistent and the requirements of the job or the nature of the specific open requisition include shift work, travel, overtime then it is best to flush out early those persons who will be rejected or who will explicitly withdraw later. Soliciting such information from job seekers in addition to the information they provide on resumes will save the employer wasting its time or the job seekers’ time processing resumes – or even conducting interviews – with job seekers with whom it does not have an authentic “meeting of the minds” about what job s/he really wants. This is but one example of what I call a “realistic job preview” which also includes telling people up front what the lifting requirements of the job are (the ACTUAL PHYSICAL ones, of course) or the exposure to dust or cold/hot temperatures. I’ve known recruiters for whom it was anathema to tell job seekers the “dirty details” up front…somehow they believed they could always talk someone into taking a job that was at odds with people's very real preferences or needs. Based on my experience, I don’t agree at all – and I’m certain that such persons, if they come to work at all, are not long retained -- and we start the process all over. To sum up, it is ALWAYS a “best practice” to use a disposition code that is as accurate as possible in describing “what happened”. Consequently, MORE are definitely BETTER. It is also always a “best practice” to pare down the number of “applicants” who must be included in any discrimination analysis BECAUSE THEY WERE “CONSIDERED” (that is, an assessment was made of BASIC QUALIFICATIONS) for selection into a particular position. The larger the number of persons in a discrimination analysis the more likely it is that differences in selection rates will be statistically significant for one or more races/ethnicities and/or for gender. The more people NOT selected, the more potential victims in an alleged “class” and, ultimately, the greater the financial risks. Managing numbers – while still ensuring there are enough qualified persons in any applicant pool to make a good selection decision – is an important compliance strategy. And being able to COUNT THE RIGHT NUMBERS based on accurate disposition coding is critical. For more info and recommendations on the use of disposition codes you might want to read my articles in the May and June 2018 issues of The OFCCP Digest on this website.