Hacker News Reader

Comment by SamWhited | Hacker News Reader

> I really wish companies would be more transparent about their candidate rejection reasons

I always wish this too. At my previous job a (also at BigCorp) candidate reached out to ask why they hadn't been selected so I started putting together a little email for them trying to give polite feedback and encouraging them to apply again in a few years (they were great, but we needed a more senior role and had no open junior positions at that time). I asked my boss to review it and make sure it was okay, and he told me that under no circumstances do we ever give candidates feedback because if you say one wrong thing it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Having been on the interview side where I really wanted to know how I could have done better, I was a bit angry on behalf of the candidate.

View on HN

> under no circumstances do we ever give candidates feedback because if you say one wrong thing it's a lawsuit waiting to happen

Wow, how widespread is this? I've _always_ asked for feedback and I've gotten meaningful feedback maybe once.

Universal, for all the companies I've worked at.

Seconding this.

I got very detailed feedback after an interview with Netflix.

I think it's fairly widespread. I got rejected from Amazon with a "reach out in 6-12 months," but without a reason for the rejection.

This is common and necessary. There are a ton of federal and state laws about what can be considered in hiring, and if one steps an inch off of the legal path, the results are dire. Written feedback is the worst. One simply can't do it, and if you were employed at yahoo, and did any interviewing, you went through that training.

I would really love an answer whether this is ACTUALLY the case - it appears to be everyone’s assumption, but is it actually true?

Surely you’re open to a lawsuit anyway: candidate doesn’t get a response to a feedback request and sues because they’re a minority, no response must mean discrimination, right?

What the company is trying to do is decrease the attack surface

Nope. I live in an at-will state. Even then, when letting someone go, if you give a reason, you may have to prove that reason in court. If you don't give a reason, then you won't have to prove anything. Therefore, a simple, "you don't fit into future plans" is always the safest reason, and nothing more. It sucks and it's cold, but it's the harsh truth. Similarly why you see very few companies and people apologizing for misdeeds, even if they're really sorry - because it opens them up to liability.

> Surely you’re open to a lawsuit anyway: candidate doesn’t get a response to a feedback request and sues because they’re a minority, no response must mean discrimination, right?

No.. because all you have to do is demonstrate that you followed standard procedures.

Your lawyers would respond to their lawyers with appropriate policy documentation, and their lawyers would tell their client that there likely isn't a case.

The only way there would be a case would be _if_ the person could find others who had received feedback.

> Surely you’re open to a lawsuit anyway

Of course. But every piece of information the ex-employee has is potential evidence that could be used to support a discrimination claim, and since you don't know what other information they have it will be able to gather and how any feedback you provide will look in light of that, the simple solution is to provide nothing.

Most people take feedback very poorly, so if you do provide someone with reason on why they weren't qualified they may read it in a very negative light. Saying something polite like "you're over qualified" might be read as age discrimination if the candidate is over 40.

Even just ignoring any liability, someone who's angry about being rejected might also respond with reasons that they are qualified or whatever and just burn up more of everyone's time. Then sometimes the reason that a candidate wasn't picked has nothing to do with them, and that's not really something you should share.

> is over 40.

A step beyond that, a surprising number of people think that that particular law applies to any age. Even if it's thrown out it may cause legal or reputation problems anyway.

> sometimes the reason that a candidate wasn't picked has nothing to do with them, and that's not really something you should share

Strongly disagree. Personally, it would be such a weight off my mind if I heard I was passed over for someone with a few more years of expertise in the target domain, or were a well-known expert, etc., or that suddenly the company is no longer able to bring on another person.

Not having to guess if it was something I said behaviorally, or if I didn’t solve a problem to their satisfaction, would remove so much frustration.

I’m a smart person–I realize that there are many other smart people out there, even smarter than me! It’s perfectly reasonable and expected that I might be competing with some of them, and it is perfectly fair and good that they win out.

In my experience as hiring manager I never had that imposed on me. However at the same time I try not to be too open because you never know some people take it personally. Sometimes people do ask and I forward a reply through HR. I do make an exception for junior candidates who are just starting out and could use a lot more pointers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com