It used to be (50 years or some such ago) that whenever you sent a resume out, a picture of the applicant was part of that resume. i don't know when that practice was stopped but recently, when I've had a client that I thought a picture would help, I've scanned and pasted in a head and shoulders. It seems the clients like it, and it has helped. what is your opinion??
--H.K., Texas
The easy answer why photos aren't used anymore is that federal employment laws regarding discrimination have changed (in the past 50 years!) and companies can now be sued if they use any information provided by the applicant that might be used discriminately (either for or against an applicant). This can include marital status, age, even beauty. You can see where the "looks" and "age" thing would be given away by a photo.
The only exceptions that I know of are modeling and acting, where it is okay to discriminate based on looks. (After all, you're casting for a certain look.)
Even though your clients may love it -- and it might look fabulous! -- know that most employers (especially larger ones -- say, with more than 20 years) will know that they can be sued for having used the photo, even if they actually didn't.
Therefore -- and this is the bad part -- many of them will throw the resume away if the picture is actually on the resume. If it's attached to the resume, almost all will throw the picture away -- and some will throw away the resume too -- again, because they don't want to be sued for even having seen the picture of the applicant with the resume.
Extreme? Of course. Unfair? Maybe. But I'd hate for your client not to get the chance to interview for his or her dream job because of it.
But to be on the safe side, unless your client is pursuing a modeling or acting job, don't include a photo. If you want to get across that she's drop-dead gorgeous, her "Activities" section can include relevant "honors" -- such as, "Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader, 1999-Present" (if that's true).
