Advice to Hiring Managers: The Less You Know the Better
When trying to figure out if job candidates are a good fit, for hiring managers it's okay to be boring—a tip that extends to small talk you…
July 20, 2017 at 10:26 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Keep it simple and stick to concrete questions that focus on the ability to perform the job, said Andrea Stempel, associate general counsel and head of employment law for Ernst & Young, as part of a panel discussion Wednesday hosted by the Practising Law Institute that gave advice on how to avoid common pitfalls in the hiring process.
Don't ask about trips to Thailand, for instance, or what year he or she graduated from high school or go too far in an attempt to make personal connections when getting to know a candidate.
This type of practice, and others, can keep employers in the clear when it comes to litigation.
The experts on the panel, Stempel and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe lawyers Jill Rosenberg and Lisa Lupion, offered advice about the changing landscape in hiring. Here are four takeaways.
|Keeping It Simple During the Interview
Be careful during interviews even with seemingly innocent questions as some areas of inquiry could be problematic, Stempel said.
Asking about a candidate's graduation year in discussing education could elicit information about a candidate's age. Suggesting that someone is “overqualified” for a position could give rise to an age discrimination claim. Questions about availability on weekends could lead to religious accommodation issues. Even questions about birthplace or language proficiency could provide unnecessary and inappropriate information regarding national origin or citizenship.
Stempel also said she is wary of a new trend of video resumes. “Less is more early in the application process,” she said.
|Navigating the Social Media Legal Landscape
Social media has become a factor in the hiring process. The majority of hiring managers, roughly 60 percent according to a recent CareerBuilder survey, use search engines to research candidates. Of those who looked into social networking sites, 49 percent found content that caused them not to hire the candidate and 32 percent said they found content that made them more likely to hire the candidate, according to the survey.
“Employers find these tools useful,” Rosenberg said. She warned, however, there are privacy issues and managers should only look at public profiles and avoid asking applicants for passwords. As a result of that trend, she said many states and cities banned employers from providing access to private pages.
“The biggest risk is that it provides too much information from an employer point of view,” Rosenberg said. There is a hazy line with photos posted. A picture of someone drinking may not be cause but other actions, like illegal drug use or “dancing naked on a table,” could show poor judgment and potential harm to the company. “This is an area where there is a lot of gray,” she said. She added, “It's important to implement best practices. It's unrealistic to completely ban managers and human resources from social media. They will be doing it anyway.”
Rosenberg advised there should be a policy and protocol to screen applicants in a uniform manner, create a list of the social media used to search each applicant and determine what types of lawful information to obtain. She also suggests to keep searches to the job-related information and even conduct the search after the interview.
|Asking About Prior Salary Not Business As Usual
Discussion about the gender pay gap has only grown in recent years, and one way states and large cities have worked to combat the disparity is to ban employers from asking about previous salary. In effect, such measures would eliminate bias or further perpetuate the cycle of lower pay.
“The idea is to fix the problem by not asking about previous salary history” Lupion said. She noted several city and state measures that have addressed this issue that bans employers in most cases from asking applicants about previous salaries, including Massachusetts, New York City, Oregon, Philadelphia and Delaware. Illinois, New Jersey and San Francisco have pending ordinances. California passed a law that prohibits employers from relying exclusively on prior salary in justifying pay differences but does not prohibit inquiring about salary history.
Lupion said the hodgepodge of regulations could be tricky ground for employers. She advised keeping records to document the rationale for the offer and a record of how the negotiations ended in a final offer. Lupion also suggested setting a salary range prior to interviewing candidates.
|Should Employers 'Ban the Box'?
An initiative took root, sparked by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and advocacy groups, to encourage employers to ban application boxes that ask if a prospective employee has ever been convicted of a crime. Critics argue this box has a disparate impact on African-American and Latino job candidates.
Rosenberg said more than 28 states and 100 cities have passed laws that prohibit employers from asking about criminal background checks. The laws in these states differ, however, and have exceptions. She said many companies have adopted a one-size-fits-all policy. In general, employers should have a policy in place. “It's not just picking and choosing where you think it might be a good idea,” Rosenberg said.
Related Articles:
|- Ex-EEOC GC David Lopez, Morgan Lewis' Speights Deconstruct Federal Labor Rules
- Trump's Labor Dept. Tells Court It Will Revise Obama's Overtime Rule
- Janet Dhillon, Ex-Big Law Turned Longtime GC, Lands Trump Nod for EEOC
- Hiring, Not Firing, Is a New Focus in Age Discrimination Suits
- 50 Companies Tell Court Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Bad For Business
Erin Mulvaney, based in Washington, covers labor and employment. Contact her at [email protected]. On Twitter: @erinmulvaney
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Template' for Religious Accommodation: Attorney Gives Insight to $12M Win Over Employer's COVID-19 Vaccination Policies
Federal Judge Sends Novel Damages Question in Employment Dispute to State Court
5 minute readNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
Dominion Energy Accused of Terminating Employee for Remote Work Request Following Medical Leave
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250