3 ms·

I would really love an answer whether this is ACTUALLY the case - it appears to be everyone’s assumption, but is it actually true?

dkersten 8y ago
Surely you’re open to a lawsuit anyway: candidate doesn’t get a response to a feedback request and sues because they’re a minority, no response must mean discrimination, right?
- rock_hard 8y ago
  What the company is trying to do is decrease the attack surface
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  Nope. I live in an at-will state. Even then, when letting someone go, if you give a reason, you may have to prove that reason in court. If you don't give a reason, then you won't have to prove anything. Therefore, a simple, "you don't fit into future plans" is always the safest reason, and nothing more. It sucks and it's cold, but it's the harsh truth. Similarly why you see very few companies and people apologizing for misdeeds, even if they're really sorry - because it opens them up to liability.
- Twirrim 8y ago
  > Surely you’re open to a lawsuit anyway: candidate doesn’t get a response to a feedback request and sues because they’re a minority, no response must mean discrimination, right? No.. because all you have to do is demonstrate that you followed standard procedures. Your lawyers would respond to their lawyers with appropriate policy documentation, and their lawyers would tell their client that there likely isn't a case. The only way there would be a case would be _if_ the person could find others who had received feedback.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Surely you’re open to a lawsuit anyway Of course. But every piece of information the ex-employee has is potential evidence that could be used to support a discrimination claim, and since you don't know what other information they have it will be able to gather and how any feedback you provide will look in light of that, the simple solution is to provide nothing.
sct202 8y ago
Most people take feedback very poorly, so if you do provide someone with reason on why they weren't qualified they may read it in a very negative light. Saying something polite like "you're over qualified" might be read as age discrimination if the candidate is over 40. Even just ignoring any liability, someone who's angry about being rejected might also respond with reasons that they are qualified or whatever and just burn up more of everyone's time. Then sometimes the reason that a candidate wasn't picked has nothing to do with them, and that's not really something you should share.
- Izkata 8y ago
  > is over 40. A step beyond that, a surprising number of people think that that particular law applies to any age. Even if it's thrown out it may cause legal or reputation problems anyway.
- sixstringtheory 8y ago
  > sometimes the reason that a candidate wasn't picked has nothing to do with them, and that's not really something you should share Strongly disagree. Personally, it would be such a weight off my mind if I heard I was passed over for someone with a few more years of expertise in the target domain, or were a well-known expert, etc., or that suddenly the company is no longer able to bring on another person. Not having to guess if it was something I said behaviorally, or if I didn’t solve a problem to their satisfaction, would remove so much frustration. I’m a smart person–I realize that there are many other smart people out there, even smarter than me! It’s perfectly reasonable and expected that I might be competing with some of them, and it is perfectly fair and good that they win out.
pkaye 8y ago
In my experience as hiring manager I never had that imposed on me. However at the same time I try not to be too open because you never know some people take it personally. Sometimes people do ask and I forward a reply through HR. I do make an exception for junior candidates who are just starting out and could use a lot more pointers.

dkersten 8y ago

Surely you’re open to a lawsuit anyway: candidate doesn’t get a response to a feedback request and sues because they’re a minority, no response must mean discrimination, right?

rock_hard 8y ago
What the company is trying to do is decrease the attack surface
stronglikedan 8y ago
Nope. I live in an at-will state. Even then, when letting someone go, if you give a reason, you may have to prove that reason in court. If you don't give a reason, then you won't have to prove anything. Therefore, a simple, "you don't fit into future plans" is always the safest reason, and nothing more. It sucks and it's cold, but it's the harsh truth. Similarly why you see very few companies and people apologizing for misdeeds, even if they're really sorry - because it opens them up to liability.
Twirrim 8y ago
> Surely you’re open to a lawsuit anyway: candidate doesn’t get a response to a feedback request and sues because they’re a minority, no response must mean discrimination, right? No.. because all you have to do is demonstrate that you followed standard procedures. Your lawyers would respond to their lawyers with appropriate policy documentation, and their lawyers would tell their client that there likely isn't a case. The only way there would be a case would be _if_ the person could find others who had received feedback.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Surely you’re open to a lawsuit anyway Of course. But every piece of information the ex-employee has is potential evidence that could be used to support a discrimination claim, and since you don't know what other information they have it will be able to gather and how any feedback you provide will look in light of that, the simple solution is to provide nothing.

sct202 8y ago

Most people take feedback very poorly, so if you do provide someone with reason on why they weren't qualified they may read it in a very negative light. Saying something polite like "you're over qualified" might be read as age discrimination if the candidate is over 40. Even just ignoring any liability, someone who's angry about being rejected might also respond with reasons that they are qualified or whatever and just burn up more of everyone's time. Then sometimes the reason that a candidate wasn't picked has nothing to do with them, and that's not really something you should share.

Izkata 8y ago
> is over 40. A step beyond that, a surprising number of people think that that particular law applies to any age. Even if it's thrown out it may cause legal or reputation problems anyway.
sixstringtheory 8y ago
> sometimes the reason that a candidate wasn't picked has nothing to do with them, and that's not really something you should share Strongly disagree. Personally, it would be such a weight off my mind if I heard I was passed over for someone with a few more years of expertise in the target domain, or were a well-known expert, etc., or that suddenly the company is no longer able to bring on another person. Not having to guess if it was something I said behaviorally, or if I didn’t solve a problem to their satisfaction, would remove so much frustration. I’m a smart person–I realize that there are many other smart people out there, even smarter than me! It’s perfectly reasonable and expected that I might be competing with some of them, and it is perfectly fair and good that they win out.

pkaye 8y ago

In my experience as hiring manager I never had that imposed on me. However at the same time I try not to be too open because you never know some people take it personally. Sometimes people do ask and I forward a reply through HR. I do make an exception for junior candidates who are just starting out and could use a lot more pointers.