The discrimination in Europe works slightly differently than in the US, as having a native sounding name is just as, or even more, important than having a "right" skin color.
So to be certain you'll avoid discrimination, you'd need to omit both the photo and the name from the CV, and that's not common at all.
Sure! Why not? Especially if we all know that that is the main determining factor of the recruiter, and the recruiter is completely protected from any discrimination. You can simply lie, regardless.
If the employer won't digitally sign their denial of my resume,or even acknowledge the reason for my denial, I'm not digitally signing mine; which means it's a theatre of discrimination disguised as "filtering" from BOTH sides.
I'm surprised so many prolific firms beyond FAANG still treat hiring like the big accounting firms of yore did/do.
Because you’re assuming just from the name or photo thay someone knows the language and have job permit.
This means children from immigrant families growing up in Europe would be discriminated against simply because of how they look and what their last name is.
Okay, so if I put down that education history, then what? I can lie.
My points are that hiring should be more based on applied challenges and gauging recruit success in context. The heavy cost of vetting should be part of the onboarding, not recruiting; which would put the onus on the employer and away from the often discriminated employee.
Look, "potential concerns" shouldn't matter unless they're real concerns. Judging someone based on "potential concerns" is discrimination. Judge someone based on who they are, not who you think they might be.
So to be certain you'll avoid discrimination, you'd need to omit both the photo and the name from the CV, and that's not common at all.