Don’t give in if managers ask HR to change the hiring criteria because they think they have already found the perfect candidate—who just happens to lack one of the job requirements. Courts often view such ad hoc changes as serious flaws in the hiring process.
Stick with the posted requirements unless managers have good and compelling reasons to change the job description. If they do, start over. Changing the job description may prompt applications from candidates who didn’t initially apply because they lacked one of the original job requirements.
Recent case: Terry Moore applied for a job in an HR department and was rejected in favor of two female applicants. He sued for reverse discrimination.
But the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out his case. The court looked carefully at the applicant pool and determined that the employer had a solid hiring and promotions process, and hadn’t suspiciously bent the rules when it made the hiring decision. Instead, it found Moore was simply the least qualified candidate. Unless he could show he was clearly more qualified than the hired applicants, he didn’t have a case. (Moore v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources, No. 07-14372, 11th Cir., 2008)
- Can you face legal risk for completing salary surveys?
- Judge doubles damages against University of Minnesota in golf coach case
- Argument in the workplace isn't harassment
- You don't have to raise arbitration at the EEOC stage
- Former employee who sued applies for new job? Take extra care about who does the hiring