> we are only allowed to consider whether or not they say they have the skill we want.
C'mon, you need to think like a bureaucrat: Just add "clear written communication skills" or "Can write details about past projects associated with C#" or whatever level of specificity you need.
I once saw "communication skills" on a list of things that could not be put in a job ad, because it could be used to justify discrimination against people of other national origins. So you might need to be more specific.
If English communication is actually important for the job, then yes, people who can't adequately communicate in English can and should be discriminated against. And yes, people who can't adequately communicate in English tend to be born outside of English-speaking countries.
Requiring strong written English to carry boxes could be considered unfair. But for a job that involves written communication?
The problem identified by the document I saw was the vagueness of this description and also its history in discrimination. It was suggested that very specific terms be used such as "ability to write detailed and understandable reports" if that is a job requirement.
C'mon, you need to think like a bureaucrat: Just add "clear written communication skills" or "Can write details about past projects associated with C#" or whatever level of specificity you need.
Yes, it's a dumbass game.