4 ms·

>>>> if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and theref

by sib 1y ago

>>>> if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue. >>> Umm, no? There are plenty of times when I've had roles posted that we interviewed candidates who met the written requirements (e.g., degrees, years of experience, etc) but did not pass our interview loops. It's very hard to prove a negative. >> if they passed the written requirements you should have interviewed them. That is the point of my anecdote; we did interview them. And yet, we did not hire them, for a variety of reasons. For example, they may not have passed the interview. Or a reference check may have raised concerns. Or we may have hired another candidate whom we also interviewed and who did better. Your implication, that they should have an easy and presumptively correct right to sue (and win) unless we can "demonstrate ... that the candidate was not qualified," is extremely expensive. It can easily cost 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars to defend a lawsuit.

em-bee 1y ago
we seem to be talking past each other. i never meant to imply that someone should win a lawsuit if you have documented why you rejected them. they should only win if you passed over their resume without interviewing them despite having a resume that is qualified and you don't have any good reason for passing over that resume AND if the position is still open and you don't have any other candidates that are better qualified that you are still interviewing. all of those conditions need to be met. i am only talking about the case where a company is collecting resumes but never interviewing anyone. or rejecting everyone they interview but skipping over qualified candidates they could interview but don't without a good reason. i haven't even thought about the case where candidates pass an interview but the position still does not get filled despite that. that's probably also something to think about, but while you seem to keep talking about candidates you interviewed, until now i have only been talking about candidates you did not interview. and again, all of this is only relevant if you are not actually filling the position, despite having found qualified candidates.

by sib 1y ago

em-bee 1y ago

we seem to be talking past each other. i never meant to imply that someone should win a lawsuit if you have documented why you rejected them. they should only win if you passed over their resume without interviewing them despite having a resume that is qualified and you don't have any good reason for passing over that resume AND if the position is still open and you don't have any other candidates that are better qualified that you are still interviewing. all of those conditions need to be met. i am only talking about the case where a company is collecting resumes but never interviewing anyone. or rejecting everyone they interview but skipping over qualified candidates they could interview but don't without a good reason. i haven't even thought about the case where candidates pass an interview but the position still does not get filled despite that. that's probably also something to think about, but while you seem to keep talking about candidates you interviewed, until now i have only been talking about candidates you did not interview. and again, all of this is only relevant if you are not actually filling the position, despite having found qualified candidates.