4 ms·

> Asking candidates if they have an additional experience to share isn't an invitation for discrimination lawsuits. It's the fact that you decided not to hire

by nomel 1y ago

> Asking candidates if they have an additional experience to share isn't an invitation for discrimination lawsuits. It's the fact that you decided not to hire them, because you found out that protected information. It was unrelated? Prove it in court. That's the reality of discrimination lawsuits. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If you're confident in this, maybe in your next couple of interviews try "That last question is something new that I'm trying. Do you think it's good, or do you think it's too personal?". You'll have to read their body language, since the power dynamics will prevent a direct answer, for many. If you're not comfortable asking that, then that's evidence enough.

Aurornis 1y ago
> It's the fact that you decided not to hire them, because you found out that protected information. Again, you don't understand how this works. If a candidate runs into your interview room and declares that they are a member of 5 protected classes, that doesn't automatically open you up to discrimination lawsuits. How is this any different than asking someone about a past job and then they answer with "I didn't finish that project because I had kids and left for parental leave". It should be obvious that a candidate can reveal information about having kids for virtually any question. > It was unrelated? Prove it in court. Once again, that's not how it works. The onus is on the applicant to prove that the information was used for discrimination. A candidate can't claim that a company discriminated against them for information they volunteered during an interview and then the company loses. They have to provide reasonable evidence to proceed to discovery, which would have to reveal something substantial that showed the information was used to discriminate, such as e-mails or chat logs. > I don't believe you asked your legal department. Legal was involved. Why do you only believe that your HR department wants to be involved in hiring processes, but mine obviously would not? If you're not interested in discussing in good faith or you only want to ignore what I wrote and inject alternate facts, I can't help you.
- nomel 1y ago
  I quickly edited that out but you saw it. I don't want to dox myself, which is why I removed it. You would trust our legal team. It's an opinion shared by every company I've ever worked for, except a startup, where they didn't know wtf they were doing, and there was no training at all: no personal questions that persuades/compels protected info. It's trivial to find this online. To stop focusing on this last point... > I'm not asking "Tell me what you do in your free time." I'm asking them if they have anything outside of work that they'd like to share that would help their case. You are asking them that, in a practically indistinguishable way. Again, because of the power dynamic you don't seem to be aware of, they must give you an answer that explains why, if not. The legally appropriate response would be "I prefer not to answer what I do in my free time outside of work", which people would be uncomfortable, so they're going to be compelled to reveal to you why they don't have anything interesting, if they don't.

by nomel 1y ago

Aurornis 1y ago

> It's the fact that you decided not to hire them, because you found out that protected information. Again, you don't understand how this works. If a candidate runs into your interview room and declares that they are a member of 5 protected classes, that doesn't automatically open you up to discrimination lawsuits. How is this any different than asking someone about a past job and then they answer with "I didn't finish that project because I had kids and left for parental leave". It should be obvious that a candidate can reveal information about having kids for virtually any question. > It was unrelated? Prove it in court. Once again, that's not how it works. The onus is on the applicant to prove that the information was used for discrimination. A candidate can't claim that a company discriminated against them for information they volunteered during an interview and then the company loses. They have to provide reasonable evidence to proceed to discovery, which would have to reveal something substantial that showed the information was used to discriminate, such as e-mails or chat logs. > I don't believe you asked your legal department. Legal was involved. Why do you only believe that your HR department wants to be involved in hiring processes, but mine obviously would not? If you're not interested in discussing in good faith or you only want to ignore what I wrote and inject alternate facts, I can't help you.

nomel 1y ago
I quickly edited that out but you saw it. I don't want to dox myself, which is why I removed it. You would trust our legal team. It's an opinion shared by every company I've ever worked for, except a startup, where they didn't know wtf they were doing, and there was no training at all: no personal questions that persuades/compels protected info. It's trivial to find this online. To stop focusing on this last point... > I'm not asking "Tell me what you do in your free time." I'm asking them if they have anything outside of work that they'd like to share that would help their case. You are asking them that, in a practically indistinguishable way. Again, because of the power dynamic you don't seem to be aware of, they must give you an answer that explains why, if not. The legally appropriate response would be "I prefer not to answer what I do in my free time outside of work", which people would be uncomfortable, so they're going to be compelled to reveal to you why they don't have anything interesting, if they don't.