Lawsuit from Job Candidate that was Not Hired
|
HR
Management |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Labor
Laws |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Management/Leadership |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Performance Management |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Our firm is being sued because we did not hire an employee. She claims that she fit all of the qualifications listed in our job description. While she is right, we still chose another employee that had better credentials. Is such a lawsuit normal? How could be have avoided it? Is there anything we can do now?
This type of lawsuit does pop up every now and then. Usually when it happens, it is either because a job applicant has suffered from a bruised ego or because the job applicant is looking to make some money off of your company. Every business can be sued for whatever reason. The two best things that you can do in order to prevent repercussions are: make sure you have business insurance that covers such instances, and make sure that you have documentation that supports every step.
First, it is good that this woman is not claiming discrimination. It is much harder (and sometimes impossible) to defend a company when a person feels that she has not been hired because of her gender or any other qualifying characteristic. Therefore, you should consider yourself lucky; you are much closer to being on equal playing ground in the courts.
In order to defend your company, you will have to prove that the person you interviewed did not fit the requirements laid out in the job description. For this reason, it is always important that your job description includes basic information about the job, qualifications required, experience required, and any other information that the company deems appropriate (as long as that information is not in any way discriminatory, such as a necessary appearance, age or gender).
Next, the courts will probably ask you to share information about the candidate that you did hire. You will likely be asked why the successful candidate was hired over the unsuccessful candidate. If applicable, you should produce evidence of the quantifiable characteristics that resulted in the decision, such as a lack of the appropriate certificates for the candidate that was not hired. You may also be able to claim that the person had bad references or answered questions in a way that was not compatible with the company philosophy, if these claims are true. You will, of course, want to be able to supply specific examples, and this is why it is always important for your supervisors and hiring managers to document everything important about an interview, even if they know that they will not hire the candidate.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 28th, 2007 at 10:25 pm and is filed under
Hiring and Staffing, Human Resources Management, Labor Laws, Management / Leadership Development, Performance Management.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
-
Ask a Question
Categories
- Attendance Management (1077)
- Benefits (1570)
- Compensation (1698)
- Employment Training (311)
- Hiring and Staffing (830)
- Human Resources Management (2864)
- Labor Laws (1108)
- Management / Leadership Development (342)
- Performance Management (208)
- Structural Development (41)
- Termination (575)
- Workplace Health & Safety (271)
- Workplace Management (426)
Blogroll
Archives
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
Recent Posts
-
Cigarette Smoking Workplace
July 31st, 2010 -
Caring for Legally Blind Spouse
July 30th, 2010 -
FMLA vs STD
July 28th, 2010 -
Joining 1st break with lunch break
July 27th, 2010 -
definition of “extended leave”
July 26th, 2010 -
vacation time remaining
July 26th, 2010 -
working more than scheduled
July 26th, 2010
Pages