[atom-morgan]

> Did Google admit that these candidates were "less qualified" than Ellis, or is it just the perception?

My guess would be perception. Honestly though, is more "qualified" the absolute end goal of any job? Thinking back to extracurricular activities in high school or college, the most qualified person didn't always get the spot - whether it be a sport, band, cheerleading, whatever. Sometimes people who weren't the best today were still chosen because coaches and instructors saw greater potential in them. Or someone less qualified with a better personality and mindset about success and what it takes to achieve success is preferred over the more qualified person that could create division within the team. This extends to professional sports as well.

Why do we pretend likes there's one objective measure for "qualified" in employment?

[nxsynonym]

Personally I believe there's more to a good hire than good-on-paper qualifications.

But when you hinge your argument and lawsuit on objective qualification then the burden of proof would lie on the accuser to prove its true.

[stevenwoo]

But wouldn't the accuser need the data that only the accused, Google in this case, has - the positions and salaries by gender that Google refuses to divulge to the Department of Labor in a separate case over government contracts?