[onezerozeroone]

Not really the company's fault here. Policies like this exist because candidates have and will sue the shit out of you for any flimsy accusation of discrimination they can cobble together.

Companies didn't create these policies arbitrarily and unprovoked. They became necessary because of some people who took advantage of the legal system to get settlements. It's in the company's best interest to protect itself from frivolous lawsuits, so it's better to be safe than sorry.

Which isn't to say that there aren't people who actually are discriminated against, but in this example it's not a company "discarding" someone as much as it is covering its bases.

[sjg007]

This fear is overblown in my opinion. If people really want to sue then they will sue based on the fact that companies hire H1Bs into the position that they applied for. Then the company would have to prove not that the H1B was the better candidate but that the American was not qualified. Who decides on that qualification? Well a judge/jury based on the job description. If your resume matches those qualifications and it's truthful then you may have a case. I think that is a bigger risk than giving feedback. Giving objective feedback may actually help you since you communicated the specific lack of qualifications. However, I do think that you can implicitly derive the feedback based on the interview questions anyway.

[zdragnar]

I worked for a company who was sued because a candidate told us he was the second coming of Christ. We didn't really address it, and ended up not hiring him. He used The fact that he mentioned it as grounds for religious discrimination.

He didn't win, but we still had lawyer costs and what not. It is not an overblown fear at all.

[phkahler]

If he sued with representation this illustrates another point. His lawyer took on a stupid frivolous case, probably because he also needed the money.

I think the real problem is that people today are on an economic treadmill. That need to survive economically is what make people willing to put up with all the other things.

[vageli]

This is exactly it. The thirst for the dollar makes us more willing to swallow bullshit with a (feigned) smile. But what can we do about it? That's the worst part. To dismantle the machine requires the coordination of a significant number of cogs.

[AFNobody]

Or you simply avoid consumerism, do your best to improve your situation, and try to hit the $50k/year point where its practical (in much of the US) to retire early if you are willing to live on a living wage rather than an inflated middle class lifestyle.

Something like 27% of the country could retire by 45 if they were willing to make the sacrifices necessary.

[mathgladiator]

First, stop the thirst within. I am going to try an experiment and live in nature on land that I buy. Why do we need so much junk?

[jjeaff]

You don't have to be so extreme as to live off the land. If people would just love below their means and save, they wouldn't be in an absolute crisis the moment they lose their job.

[notriddle]

I would not be surprised if he represented himself.

[JBlue42]

People also act like everyone has access to good lawyers or ones that would take on a case like this. The aforementioned 'lying in business' part comes in to play here where instead of 'we don't hire [race x]' it's 'The candidate did not meet the qualifications' or some other bullshit excuse.

It would take some hard evidence for me, the unemployed or in the less powerful position, to really make a go of proving I wasn't hired because of some discrimination.

The fear of blackballing on the employee side for many things and the fear of lawsuits (which, when you sign on at employer, typically includes some language about arbitration these days) on the employer side are overblown, I agree, and makes everyone cut throat.

I want to make enough to pay for rent, food, and have some time off to chill. Your company wants to stay and business and make money. Let's make a deal that benefits us both.

[aestetix]

And because lawsuits are expensive, and often lawyers won't take a case unless it will bring them publicity or a big cash payout.

[Thriptic]

This goes for firing too. I've seen people who were categorically under performing try to bring lawsuits claiming discrimination upon firing many times.

[sjg007]

This is why they just have layoffs.

[AFNobody]

Correct in most cases but if they put an identical job title out at an identical location, they are still vulnerable so you have to pick someone a grade more junior or a grade more senior to replace them.

[sjg007]

Or they work with recruiters.

[AFNobody]

Working with recruiters to hire the same position that was part of a layoff in the same calendar year is problematic for obvious reasons.

[ljw1001]

True, but.... A company can (does) decide how much time, energy and money to put into protecting its executives. There is a strong trend that all business decisions are made because execs desire for self preservation makes them prioritize legal safety over every other consideration, including productivity and innovation, not just over being humane.

[kartan]

>> I am not even allowed to tell a candidate (another human being that probably NEEDS a paycheck) why I didn't hire them and what they can do to improve their viability. > Policies like this exist because candidates have and will sue the shit out of you for any flimsy accusation of discrimination they can cobble together.

I thought that it was the other way around. You need to have always ready the reasons why a candidate has been rejected and give them on request. Otherwise, they can sue you as your reasons are not clean and transparent.

But, I guess that this depends on the country's laws.

[zdragnar]

The reason is simple: "We've found a candidate who is a better fit" although that is, in my experience, due in no small part to the fact that we've never not been able to fill a position.

Conversely, one company I worked for did have us provide candidates thorough feedback, though that was only for those who didn't pass from a code challenge to an interview. Perhaps the hiring managers have them feedback, I'm not sure.

PS: the code challenge we gave was carefully put together so as to both be reasonably quick to complete for a skilled developer, but be vague enough in requirements to not have a single answer that could be copy-pasted from a Google search. For anyone who didn't pass, I'd typically write two to three pages, focused entirely on objective metrics, and online resources for further learning should the candidate choose to apply again in the future. We didn't use it as a binary yes / no test, but to inform the discussion we would have in the in-person interview assuming the candidate had a sufficient level of skill.

[tomrod]

> I thought that it was the other way around. You need to have always ready the reasons why a candidate has been rejected and give them on request. Otherwise, they can sue you as your reasons are not clean and transparent.

"We found someone more qualified. Thank you for your interest."

[sjg007]

I don't think that would pass muster if challenged.

[tomrod]

I admit I am not very well informed in this area. Why would this not pass muster if challenged?

[pcarolan]

It would be valuable if a 3rd party solved the problem of feedback minus the liability. Could be a business there. No idea what that would look like though.

[Benjammer]

It's called "Consulting"

[pcarolan]

Job seekers hire consultants? News to me. Good on them.

[throwaway84742]

I can name at least two established companies (FB and SpaceX) that will tell you why you were rejected. I 100% respect when companies are willing to do difficult, potentially perilous stuff like this.

[throwaway1673]

FB policy may have changed? I was rejected last week and they said they couldn't tell me why for legal reasons.

[throwaway84742]

Maybe. I did get feedback from them, but that was a few years ago.