Top Ways Hiring Supervisors Get Their Employers Sued
1. Interview questions
Questions about age, race, sex, family responsibilities, national origin and disabilities are off
limits. Even if a supervisor doesn’t ask about those things directly, “small talk” questions like
“Oh, what church do you go to?” or “Do you think you’ll ever have kids?” can give the
impression of bias.
2. Interview notes
Information about a candidate’s protected status might come up when he or she answers other
questions. But supervisors must be absolutely sure not to write any notes related to those
categories.
No matter what the reason for writing something down, to a judge or jury it usually means one
thing — that the supervisor considered that information when making the hiring decision.
Which is a good reason to write notes about a candidate when providing a “number score”.
To make sure the best applicants are consistently hired and promoted, many organizations rank
candidates based on a numerical score hiring supervisors assign during the interview. When not
carried out correctly, that process can spell big legal trouble.
One recent case involved a 59-year-old employee who applied for two promotions.
The employer’s selection process was simple: All candidates who met the minimum
requirements were interviewed by a panel of supervisors. Everyone was asked the same
questions, and each search member gave the candidates a score for each response.
All the scores were added up, and the candidate with the highest total got the job.
The employee lost his bid for two promotions to significantly younger candidates. One time, he
was beaten by a 30-year-old with less experience who scored just one point higher on the
assessment. The other successful candidate was 42 and had less education.
He sued, claiming he was denied the jobs because of his age. The company argued it was just
following its policy of promoting the candidate who scored highest on the interview.
But the court didn’t buy the organization’s defense. The problem: records of the interviews
showed that the members of the committee kept no notes about each candidate’s performance in
the interview — they just wrote down the scores.
The employee substantiated that he had more education and experience than the candidates who
were promoted and claimed his lower scores were based on his age. Then it was up to the
organization to prove the scoring process was unbiased.
HRRecruitingAlert.com But without any notes from the interviewers, it couldn’t show why the employee was ranked
lower. The organization failed to have the case thrown out and will now face a costly trial or pay
a big settlement.
The court made sure to note that awarding jobs based on a consistent interview scoring process is
not inherently discriminatory. But without documentation to back up the numbers, organizations
won’t be able to prove scores were handed out fairly.
Lovell v. Covenant Homeland Security Solutions, Ltd.
3. Questions from unsuccessful candidates
Supervisors have to be very careful about the comments they make if they have any contact with
unsuccessful candidates — for example, if people ask them why they didn’t get hired.
In recent court cases, supervisors have said things along the lines of “We wanted someone who’d
help our diversity,” or “You didn’t have the right look” — and ended up costing their companies
big.
Supervisors want to avoid answering those questions or stick with an all-purpose statement: “We
filled the position with the most qualified candidate.”
4. Promises about the job
Below is a case where a supervisor incorrectly told a candidate she’d get a certain benefits
package — and she sued after she was hired and given less coverage.
The lesson for supervisors: Don’t exaggerate anything about the job. Even false statements of
non-monetary things — for example, possibilities of promotion — could potentially lead to the
company getting sued for making false promises.
Case for Benefits Promises
When hiring supervisors find a really desirable candidate, they often feel pressured to “sell” the
job to make sure the offer’s accepted - here’s one that went too far — and got this company
dragged into court.
A woman was hired for a part-time job with the company. During the interview, the hiring
supervisor told her she’d be given the same benefits as a full-time employee. Also, when she was
offered the job, she was given a document summarizing the benefits offered to full-time
employees.
On her first day of work, she learned that part-timers weren’t eligible for full benefits. When she
complained to Human Resources, she was given a list of what she would receive. The HR
manager told her the supervisor’s comments and the written documents were “honest mistakes.”
HRRecruitingAlert.com She didn’t think so, and she sued the company.
The court ruled in her favor. The judge said the company made a promise to her — in person and
in writing — which convinced the woman to switch jobs, and then backed down on the promise
to her detriment (Timpe v. WATG Holdings, Inc.).
Don’t make promises you can’t keep.
HRRecruitingAlert.com