Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements


No announcement yet.

New York hiring / interview

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New York hiring / interview

    About 7 persons applied for a position, a *majority* of whom met the minimum requirements.

    4 had their applications accepted and presented to committee (all meeting requirements) and were denied interview.

    3 had their applications accepted and presented to committee (only abstractly meeting requirements) and were granted interview.

    I (as you can tell by the post, I'm sure) was denied an interview. I'm upset, sure, but would like to know why I was not granted an interview. I asked the personnel director and was replied to with a rewording of the original "thank you for applying, but you have not been selected for interview, etc etc etc" letter. I again asked what criteria I failed to meet and have not received a reply.

    A few (well intentioned) friends have told me that "they are supposed to tell me why I was not selected for interview when those that abstractly met the requirements were", but, as much as I want to know, I don't want to force the issue if I don't have the right to know (if that makes any sense).

  • #2
    There is no legal requirement that you be told why you were not accepted for
    an interview. (It could be any # of reasons.)
    Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

    Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.


    • #3

      am I within 'my rights' (I HATE using that term, by the way) to know the criteria used? I'm already under the impression I'm SOL, but wanted to go every avenue...


      • #4
        No, they do not have to tell you what criteria they used to select one applicant
        for an interview over another.
        Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

        Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.


        • #5
          thank you - I appreciate you taking the time to reply


          • #6
            You're welcome.
            Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

            Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.


            • #7
              The employer is under no legal obligation to tell you the criteria used.

              Flip the question for the moment. The employer has to actually break a law for things to get interesting (legally). What is the actual law you think has been broken?

              - Employer ABC has a hard rule against hiring Chicago Cubs fans, the owner being a big Chicago White Sox fans. This is discrimination, but it is not illegal discrimination. One's sports team affiliation is not a legal protected status.
              - Employee XYZ has a very soft and quiet rule against hiring someone of a certain race. This violates an actual law called Title VII. This is not just discrimination but is actually illegal discrimination.

              But let's say that Bob applies to both companies and is not hired at either company. Even if Bob is subject to illegal discrimination at XYZ, the employer still has no legal requirement to tell Bob what their "criteria" is. XYZ would be a complete idiot to do so. And there is no law requiring XYZ to incriminate themselves. Bob's recourse (if any) against XYZ is to show that a pattern on non-hiring based on race exists. XYZ will of course lie their *** off in court and claim whatever story seems to justify their behavior. The a judge gets to decide whose story the judge likes best.


              1. If you cannot at least claim that an actual law is being violated, then no offense, but you would have nothing.

              2. Even if you can claim that an actual law is being violated, this would be a complicated case requiring a specialized lawyer to help make the case. Depending on the law, there are generally a government agency that the compliant can be made to, but that is generally just the start of the process. Finishing the process generally requires an attorney.
              "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
              Philip K. **** (1928-1982)


              • #8
                I am curious where you got your information about the candidate pool? I'm pretty sure the personnel director would like to know, too.


                • #9
                  DAW - I didn't state, nor did I intend to imply, that any laws had been violated - I had simply been told by some well intentioned (though apparently assuming) friends that a reason should be revealed as to why I wasn't chosen from interview when I had been advised that my application was complete and met requirement.

                  J.J. - I would not reveal my sources, however, there were no laws violated.


                  • #10
                    Your friends are mistaken. There is no requirement in any state that an employer provide you with the reason you were not hired; nor are they obligated to share the criteria they used to make the decision. They are not even OBLIGATED by law to inform you that you were not selected; they CAN, and still be entirely within the law, leave you twisting in the wind, forced to come to the eventual conclusion that you have not been selected since no one has notified you that you were.

                    I am not in favor of leaving applicants hanging, but the fact remains that they can do so legally.
                    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.


                    • #11
                      Your source may not have the same ability to assess the resumes of the candidate pool against the job description, especially when the personnel director or the committee may have been looking for something specific that your source may not have known about. I can't imagine a scenario where out of 7 candidates, the 3 least likely were put forward for consideration. Your source must have gotten something wildly wrong, or is telling you what he/she thinks you want to hear.

                      I'm not sure what "only abstractly meeting requirements" means, anyway. Was this a government position?

                      I know you're frustrated, but it's definitely a tough market out there with so many candidates for jobs. Good luck.


                      • #12
                        The issue with your source sharing information with you is not a matter of law, but it may be a matter of company policy regarding confidentiality. You were not entitled to that information, so your source violated company policy by giving it to you. If management found out, both of you could be legally terminated.


                        • #13
                          Employers legally have a great deal of latitude in managing their business. This means that they can and do make bad decisions. That they make decisions that some people do not agree with. It is quite legal to make bad decisions. Or decisions that some people wish to call bad decisions.


                          Not really your question, but I have been a line manager (not HR) at several large companies. Different companies (legally) have very different handling, but where I worked, the general rule of thumb we used, a matter of practice, not law, is as follows:
                          - Find if there is a qualified internal candiate whom hiring would not violate some internal rule. Some companies (legally) have rules that employees cannot jump jobs every few months. If there is more then one internal qualified candiate, then figure out who the best candidate is. The big advantage of inside candidates is if they are turkies, you can find out by asking around. Past that, if your company is not a good fit for all people, presumably the inside candiate has already passed the "culture shock" test. The disadvantage of internal candidates is when you really needed skills or experience that they do not have.
                          - If no qualified internal candiates, then advertise outside. Any questionable looking candiate in a down economy does not get interviewed. In todays economy, I could get hundreds of candidates, some well qualified for any job. In a strong economy with lots of jobs, anyone with a pulse can get an interview.
                          - "Best qualified" does not mean the same thing to everyone. In a prior down economy I had Accounts Payable reporting to me, and get hundreds of resumes for open positions. Once the so-called "best qualified" candidate had a Harvard MBA and 7 years as CFO for a Fortune 500 company. Right. Either the guy has something seriously wrong with him, or is just mailing resumes to every employer who advertises every position. AP staff is close to entry level. I do not mind training people, but I am not going to hire someone who has one foot out the door day one. The person I ended up hiring had 8 years AP experience using exactly the same Accounting/AP software we used. She did not interview well, and worked previously for a much smaller company, but otherwise looked like a very good fit. Someone whom my boss derisively referred to as a "lifer". Correct, but someone who came to work every day on time, and did her job well every day I was there. Someone who later got been promoted to senior AP staff based on merit. And I had in house candidates with no background in AP, accounting or numbers who complained that they did not get that job. People do not like hearing this, but sometimes "fit" is important. Sometimes it is not who has the "biggest" degree, but whose background indicates an ability to do the actual job being filed. Someone who gives the right kind of interview. Someone who does not change jobs every 3 months.
                          "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                          Philip K. **** (1928-1982)


                          • #14
                            Agree with above posters. And sometimes finding out the "real" reason you were not given a chance is tough. You may consider yourself to be the best candidate, but you may not to the employees making the hiring decisions.

                            We had a great employee, hard worker who filed a complaint because he was always passed up for a promotion to lead, or supervisory positions. On paper he was a great choice, but the truth was that his English skills were not up to par, even after we had encouraged him to attend ESL classes. He just assumed we discriminated , and in fact we did, legally since the position required English communication slkills due to safet issues. Not your case but an example of what else goes on beyond just meeting the requirements on paper.


                            • #15
                              I worked with a lady who put in for a lot of promotions over the years and was qualified to do most of them. However, while she was great with students, she was a complete witch to staff and faculty. She would never be promoted in that organization. Her boss tolerated her attitude but no one else would.

                              So sometimes, just because someone meets qualifications doesnt mean they are the best for the job or the right fit.
                              I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have.
                              Thomas Jefferson


                              The forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.