4 ms·

> Interviewing is a minefield of legal stuff that can easily blow up into he said/she said lawsuits. As someone with experience in the EU but mostly Canada, or

> Interviewing is a minefield of legal stuff that can easily blow up into he said/she said lawsuits. As someone with experience in the EU but mostly Canada, organizations with 150 employees and 150k employees, can someone put this into perspective for me please? It's this mostly an American thing? I've never had any issues like this or even any exposure to things like that happening around me.

RHSeeger 5y ago
Discriminating hiring based on certain things is illegal (for example, martial and/or parental status). If you ask about these things during an interview, even casually, and then do not hire the person, they have basis to claim you did it because of what they learned about that status. Also, I believe in some places, it's illegal to ask what they were making at a previous job. This might be something that an interviewer discusses if they don't know about the rule. There's just a lot of little landmines like that.
- kevinmchugh 5y ago
  Employers should have training for interviewers that includes discussion of protected classes but it's not that hard. Don't ask questions that are irrelevant to the interview. If you need to make pleasantries, stick to very broad questions, eg "how's your day going so far?", "How about this weather?". There's no legitimate reason most of the protected classes should come up in an interview. Sometimes people will ask "where are you from?" or similar during an interview, and that's in the off-limits category.
sbarre 5y ago
At my work we go through interview training because if an employee is not hired, and believes they were treated unfairly or turned down for reasons that could be human rights violations and files a grievance, they can request copies of all documentation and notes from the company's side as part of their interview process. That's mostly why we are told "write down things that were said, not your opinions", but I've definitely seen interview notes that include things that would not be appropriate to share back with the candidate.
- tppiotrowski 5y ago
  This. We were asked to always write down questions the candidate got right as well as questions they got wrong so there was a documented, objective reason why they were not hired.
  - GauntletWizard 5y ago
    So much of what you write down is necessarily opinion, because even your interpretation of what words the candidate said can color the interview a lot. Unless you have a stenography background, you are not going to keep up with the pace of both your and the candidates words and conduct an interview at the same time. You could use audio recording to have a direct transcript (or just submit the audio), but that would waste a lot of time. If you ask a candidate, "How would you approach problem X", and the candidate says "I believe X is Y because A is B, so I'll approach it from this angle", you'll likely need to paraphrase. And even in that one sentence, you can paraphrase many different ways: "Candidate believes X is Y", "Candidate says A is B", "X is Y" "Candidate approached from angle Y"... All are color. Your bias seeps in in many ways. Paradoxically z the less attention you pay to it the more other people will be able to work around it, because they'll understand how you work.
drunkpotato 5y ago
I've been interviewing for multiple companies at all scales for over a decade in the US. Hiring lawsuits just haven't been a factor. It was years ago, but I think I might have taken a half hour interview training session at a large company that was along the lines of "Don't ask about age, marital status, kids, etc, but it's fine if the candidate brings it up first. Use your best judgment." That was about it. I could also be mis-remembering and that could just have been something my manager at the time told me before throwing me into the interview rotation. So I think calling it a legal minefield is stretching reality by quite a lot.
- pc86 5y ago
  If you know what protected classes are, and understand that you shouldn't bring them up in any way, and only discuss them with candidates if they bring them up first and within that context (e.g. if they mention their "spouse" you can talk about that but best to not ask anything about kids until/unless they bring it up first again), you've successfully avoided 99.9999% of all pre-hire lawsuits.
zdragnar 5y ago
Here is an example from a coworker from a previous job: A candidate came in for an interview. It was quickly apparent he slipped by the phone screen, as he brought code examples in MS Word documents. During the interview, he claimed to be the second coming of Christ. The interviewers (my coworker and his boss) wisely said nothing in response and moved on to a different topic. A few weeks later, he initiated a lawsuit claiming we did not hire him due to religious discrimination. It was a nuisance suit and dismissed as such, but a good reminder that interviews are business transactions, not chats between friends. A very short list of questions that would potentially be cause for a lawsuit: - religion - family (i.e. do you have kids) - culture (aside from work behaviors) - personal background - race - health (nothing at all can be said short of stating that accomodations can be provided if necessary, assuming the job does not have physical requirements such as lifting or driving). There are more, but I think this should give you a decent idea. The point is not that everyone is litigious, but rather that there are people who are, and you must act as a representative of the company during an interview. Personally, I would not expect someone to take an active role in interviewing unless they had some training or I knew they were already experienced- partly for these reasons, but more so because it is not an easy skill. I have suffered through bad interviews at companies, and wouldnt want a company I work for to make those mistakes.

RHSeeger 5y ago

Discriminating hiring based on certain things is illegal (for example, martial and/or parental status). If you ask about these things during an interview, even casually, and then do not hire the person, they have basis to claim you did it because of what they learned about that status. Also, I believe in some places, it's illegal to ask what they were making at a previous job. This might be something that an interviewer discusses if they don't know about the rule. There's just a lot of little landmines like that.

kevinmchugh 5y ago
Employers should have training for interviewers that includes discussion of protected classes but it's not that hard. Don't ask questions that are irrelevant to the interview. If you need to make pleasantries, stick to very broad questions, eg "how's your day going so far?", "How about this weather?". There's no legitimate reason most of the protected classes should come up in an interview. Sometimes people will ask "where are you from?" or similar during an interview, and that's in the off-limits category.

sbarre 5y ago

At my work we go through interview training because if an employee is not hired, and believes they were treated unfairly or turned down for reasons that could be human rights violations and files a grievance, they can request copies of all documentation and notes from the company's side as part of their interview process. That's mostly why we are told "write down things that were said, not your opinions", but I've definitely seen interview notes that include things that would not be appropriate to share back with the candidate.

tppiotrowski 5y ago
This. We were asked to always write down questions the candidate got right as well as questions they got wrong so there was a documented, objective reason why they were not hired.
- GauntletWizard 5y ago
  So much of what you write down is necessarily opinion, because even your interpretation of what words the candidate said can color the interview a lot. Unless you have a stenography background, you are not going to keep up with the pace of both your and the candidates words and conduct an interview at the same time. You could use audio recording to have a direct transcript (or just submit the audio), but that would waste a lot of time. If you ask a candidate, "How would you approach problem X", and the candidate says "I believe X is Y because A is B, so I'll approach it from this angle", you'll likely need to paraphrase. And even in that one sentence, you can paraphrase many different ways: "Candidate believes X is Y", "Candidate says A is B", "X is Y" "Candidate approached from angle Y"... All are color. Your bias seeps in in many ways. Paradoxically z the less attention you pay to it the more other people will be able to work around it, because they'll understand how you work.

drunkpotato 5y ago

I've been interviewing for multiple companies at all scales for over a decade in the US. Hiring lawsuits just haven't been a factor. It was years ago, but I think I might have taken a half hour interview training session at a large company that was along the lines of "Don't ask about age, marital status, kids, etc, but it's fine if the candidate brings it up first. Use your best judgment." That was about it. I could also be mis-remembering and that could just have been something my manager at the time told me before throwing me into the interview rotation. So I think calling it a legal minefield is stretching reality by quite a lot.

pc86 5y ago
If you know what protected classes are, and understand that you shouldn't bring them up in any way, and only discuss them with candidates if they bring them up first and within that context (e.g. if they mention their "spouse" you can talk about that but best to not ask anything about kids until/unless they bring it up first again), you've successfully avoided 99.9999% of all pre-hire lawsuits.

zdragnar 5y ago

Here is an example from a coworker from a previous job: A candidate came in for an interview. It was quickly apparent he slipped by the phone screen, as he brought code examples in MS Word documents. During the interview, he claimed to be the second coming of Christ. The interviewers (my coworker and his boss) wisely said nothing in response and moved on to a different topic. A few weeks later, he initiated a lawsuit claiming we did not hire him due to religious discrimination. It was a nuisance suit and dismissed as such, but a good reminder that interviews are business transactions, not chats between friends. A very short list of questions that would potentially be cause for a lawsuit: - religion - family (i.e. do you have kids) - culture (aside from work behaviors) - personal background - race - health (nothing at all can be said short of stating that accomodations can be provided if necessary, assuming the job does not have physical requirements such as lifting or driving). There are more, but I think this should give you a decent idea. The point is not that everyone is litigious, but rather that there are people who are, and you must act as a representative of the company during an interview. Personally, I would not expect someone to take an active role in interviewing unless they had some training or I knew they were already experienced- partly for these reasons, but more so because it is not an easy skill. I have suffered through bad interviews at companies, and wouldnt want a company I work for to make those mistakes.