3 ms·
> 1. Interview candidates with cameras on. It could be worth reviewing Ogletree v. Cleveland State University before doing this. A court ruled that a room scan
by al_borland 1y ago
> 1. Interview candidates with cameras on.
It could be worth reviewing Ogletree v. Cleveland State University before doing this. A court ruled that a room scan violated a person’s 4th amendment rights.
There is also the risk that the person could have something on their wall which could indicate they are in a protected class, and if they don’t get the job, they could claim you used this information against them.
While I’m sure cameras for interviews are likely commonplace, it does open up some risk. Some may see it as an acceptable amount of risk, others may not.
- austin-cheney 1y agoThat is entirely the candidate's liability. If they don't want certain identifying materials or decorations made visible during the interview then don't make them visible to the camera. There is no law that says as a hiring manager I must wear a blindfold or otherwise hide from the candidate. As a fully remote hiring manager I am interviewing a person and I need to see that person to know if or when they are full of shit when they talk. If that isn't acceptable they can interview somewhere else.