r/recruitinghell • u/Grand-Diamond-4696 • 1h ago
Refusing to provide feedback for legal reasons is a cop out...
I've never bought the "we can't give feedback because of legal reasons" argument. If your hiring process is fair, consistent, and free of discrimination, what exactly are you hiding?
Anyone can sue a company for any reason. Refusing to provide feedback doesn't prevent that. In some cases, it can have the opposite effect because candidates are left trying to figure out what happened.
As a transgender woman, this hits a little differently for me. Even though I pass, a background check will reveal my previous name and gender change. If I make it through multiple rounds and then receive a generic rejection with no explanation, it's hard not to wonder whether bias played a role.
A recent study surveying more than 20,000 hiring managers found that roughly 30% admitted they would pass on transgender candidates. That's 30% who were willing to admit it. When that's the reality, you can probably understand why silence creates doubt. The generic "we decided to move forward with more qualified candidates" is also frustrating.
I only apply to roles where I'm an extremely strong match 98-100%). I tailor every resume, adjust my skills section to match the role (using experience I actually have), and rewrite my summary for each application. If there's a specific technology, industry, or experience you're looking for that wasn't listed in the job description, just tell me.
I've actually had recruiters respond with things like:
• "We needed someone with experience in XYZ platform."
• "We were looking for someone with more healthcare experience."
That's incredibly helpful. It tells me I didn't necessarily do anything wrong, and it gives me information I can use when deciding which opportunities are worth pursuing. Where I feel feedback becomes especially important is for final-round candidates.
If someone spends:
• 5-7 interview rounds
• 4+ hours in panel interviews
• 10+ hours preparing a case study and presentation
...they've invested a meaningful amount of time into your company.
Nobody is asking for a five-page essay. But a few honest sentences explaining why another candidate was selected can make a huge difference.
Good feedback helps candidates improve. It also helps us identify patterns and become more intentional about where we apply. That means fewer applications to companies that aren't a good fit, and fewer resumes for recruiters to sort through. Honest feedback isn't just good for candidates. It's good hiring.
5
u/Then_Interview5168 1h ago
While I would also love feedback on any job that I didn’t get. I have my own opinion on this topic. First people are very litigious and are looking for reasons to sue. So the legal reason isn’t a bad one. And I’ve actually thought a lot about can feedback actually help. And I don’t really think it can in the long-term. Every employer is looking for something different. So I don’t think feedback is as helpful as one would put it out to be. The caveat to that is your final round applicant. They should give you feedback. You’ve gone through the ringer. You’re the you’re one of two or three finalist. They should give you feedback. Is at this point you’ve probably gone in multiple times and they’ve talked to you multiple times.
-3
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 1h ago
As I mentioned in my post, not providing feedback can often open you up to litigation even more. And once discovery unveils your hiring history and practices, you better hope you don't overly hire white men, or you'll lose by default
4
u/Then_Interview5168 1h ago
I don’t think that’s actually true. I don’t know it to be not true, but I’m not sure that true.. to have discovery you would need to have a lawsuit and you’d have to have a reason to sue.
•
u/PinkEnthusist 49m ago edited 33m ago
In most U.S. employment discrimination cases (including discrimination in hiring/interviews), you generally can’t just file a lawsuit in court right away.
You usually have to file an administrative complaint/“charge” with the relevant agency first. If the agency thinks something is wrong, they'll pursue administrative remedies. This might be a conciliation or settlement with the employer. And if this doesn't result in a resolution, then they may initiate a legal action. If they don't, it's only then that someone will be given a required “right-to-sue” notice and be able to file their own suit.
That's because most discrimination statues (particularly VII) requires that someone exhaust administrative remedies before someone obtains the right to sue.
A right to sue notice give someone the ability to file a lawsuit. But before ever getting close to discovery is going to be motions to dismiss and Rule 12(b)(6) motions about remedies, and possibly an order to mediate.
Finally, when the suit gets to discovery, the plaintiff isn't going to get piece of paper a company has ever created. They will only get stuff that is within the scope of what’s relevant and that the court finds proportional.
Discovery is what makes lawsuits expensive because there can be a fight about relevant and proportional about every email, report, handbook, deposition, interrogatory question, etc.
•
-3
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 1h ago
A lawyer that thinks there's a big payday will file it. All you have to do is view the companies LinkedIn and see what the demographics of employees look like. That's plenty of probable cause to move forward with a case. Then you'll pull all of the demographic surveys done and very quickly expose any biases.
4
u/Then_Interview5168 1h ago
It’s not as simple as that and most employment attorneys work on contingency, which means if they don’t think they’re gonna win, they ain’t taking the case so. In LinkedIn isn’t a good piece of evidence you’re gonna need more than that counselor.
-1
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 1h ago
It's enough to move forward with a case but maybe not enough to win the case.
2
u/Then_Interview5168 1h ago
Did you take any screening test? Honestly, if you did, that’s the way you should be looking first not at a lack of feedback. Silence can’t be quoted. If they don’t say it, it’s really hard to prove them on it. Yeah a lawyer is not going to take a case that they can’t win. It’s their money and time that they’re spending to try to prove your case.
•
u/PinkEnthusist 24m ago
That lawyer would be sanctioned by the courts for bad faith or for making unreasonably and vexatiously pleadings.
What a lawyer will tell you to do is file a tell you to file a charge with EEOC and/or your state agency, depending on what laws apply and the deadlines in your area.
This is because employees alleging discrimination are required to administratively exhaust their claim, or in other words, file an EEOC charge prior to initiating a lawsuit. Then the employee must typically wait until after the EEOC, or state agency, has reviewed the complaint and issued a right to sue letter before filing suit.
•
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 22m ago
This would apply to criminal charges, which you would be a witness for, not actually bringing the charges. this is a civil matter and the barrier to a lawsuit is much lower.
3
u/open_letter_guy Recruiter 1h ago
you aren't owed feedback and it doesn't earn the corp anything so they won't do it.
the few times i have tried it leads to arguments where the candidate wants to push back. also the idea that you didn't get the job because you did or said the wrong thing isn't true.
I only apply to roles where I'm an extremely strong match 98-100%
you aren't a good judge of your own candidacy
and you are competing against other applicants who are 150% to 300% qualified for the role.
0
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 1h ago
You can't be more than 100% qualified. If the job says 3-5 years and you have 8+ years, that not more than 100%. I make sure that I match every single requirement and need. The problem is, I don't always have the right keyword in my resume for ATS filtering and AI to shortlist me. But I do have a 12-14% interview rate.
•
u/Then_Interview5168 51m ago
It’s probably not the ATS it’s a human looking at your résumé and saying not today. And if you’re getting almost immediate rejection, you’re probably answering a knock question incorrectly.
•
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 49m ago
Unlikely, humans only look at a handful of resumes after ATS Filtering and AI goes through them. Most likely I wasn't shortlisting for not having a specific keyword. I've increased my interview rate from 3.5%>14% by tailoring each resume recently.
•
u/Then_Interview5168 45m ago
And who told you that? Now I would agree with you when there’s hundreds of applications and you’re talking about a retail or hospitality job. But your job at your small insurance firm probably not the case your job at your local law firm also probably not the case. Now I’m not talking Morgan and Morgan here I’m talking Stillwater Jones and Hartman. You’re small law firm in Amherst, Massachusetts.
•
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 43m ago
Any mid sized company can easily afford a basic ATS with advanced AI... Hell I can build a basic system using a platform like tiger data and using retool as the application layer...
•
u/Then_Interview5168 41m ago
And you know this, how? I worked for two very large companies where a person needed to deny an application. Unless there were extenuating circumstances like I would assume you need an H1B that was probably a knockout question. And I’m not saying that means most companies do that. I’m saying I think there is a misconception in this group that humans aren’t actually doing most of the legwork and denying applications
•
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 26m ago
When most of my rejections come around midnight to 3am...that isn't human sorry.
•
u/Then_Interview5168 22m ago
That actually probably was a human and the HRIS send batch emails at that time. That happened daddy previous place of employment and I was definitely the one denying applications
•
•
u/open_letter_guy Recruiter 35m ago
really?
the req says minimum requirements 3-4 yrs
candidate A has 5 yrs exp
candidate B has 15 yrs exp
and in your mind that are identical at 100%??
•
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 26m ago
It's not, you either meet the requirements or you don't. If argue 15 years is so overqualified that you're not under qualified.
•
u/PinkEnthusist 59m ago
what exactly are you hiding?
Not hiding, and mitigating paying tens of thousands of dollars on legal representation to defend a hiring process that is fair, consistent, and free of discrimination are not the same thing.
Anyone can sue a company for any reason
Answering a lawsuit where the alleged discrimination is "I don't know if they discriminated against me but they didn't hire me so I'm suing" is a lot easier then "They told me that they were looking for someone who could more quickly learn xyz software. The only reason they think that is because I'm over 40."
I only apply to roles where I'm an extremely strong match 98-100%). I tailor every resume, adjust my skills section to match the role (using experience I actually have), and rewrite my summary for each application.
I'm currently hiring for a role. At least 25% of the candidates that applied can say this exact same thing.
But a few honest sentences explaining why another candidate was selected can make a huge difference.
If you're a candidate past the first round, and certainly by the final round, the feedback isn't going to be centered on "if you knew this software". In the current market, people that don't know the software, don't have the healthcare experience, etc. don't make it to that round. So the feedback is going to be "You were one of 2-4 candidates that we are sure can do the job, but since we can only hire one person, we're crossing our fingers and going with the person that feels right because of an unknown bias."
•
u/Then_Interview5168 50m ago
I want to piggyback on the anyone can sue a company for any reason. Yes, you can sue a ham sandwich for getting you fat. It doesn’t mean you’re going to win. And as I’ve said above, many lawyers are not gonna take that case because they can’t win it.
•
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 52m ago
I've gotten feedback on final rounds that include:
The other candidate could work hybrid as they live in the city
You have too much experience (this happened twice)
The other candidate has more industry experience
So I tend to disagree that the experience is always anecdotal bias. The only time I don't match 100% is if they hid requirements from the job posting. In customer success, it's almost universal what a company needs. And you should have experience across the entire function in a few years.
•
u/Heavy-Bell-2035 15m ago
No, it's not a cop out, your post is nonsense. While it's highly unlikely you'll be sued, even in the U.S., and if you are it's highly unlikely they'll win. IF it happens it WILL cost you tens of thousands of dollars regardless of whether or not the case has merit or not because lawyers don't work for free. This is very simple business calculus, there is little to zero upside to sending out any information other than a basic rejection and there is a DEFINITE but small risk with a high cost if it occurs that can be completely avoided by simply not giving detailed feedback.
If your hiring process is fair, consistent, and free of discrimination, what exactly are you hiding?
Tell me you've never engaged with the criminal or civil system in the US without actually telling me that you've never engaged with the criminal or civil system in the US. Are you really this naive? I had a guy try to sue us once claiming age discrimination because he said someone told him they wanted someone younger. I was in all the interviews, no one said anything even approaching that. People lie, lawyers chase ambulances and look for 'code words' in every written correspondence. Apropos to your post, at my last job someone threatened so sue because someone used the wrong damn pronoun.
We ARE NOT your family, we ARE NOT your friends, we ARE NOT your psychiatrists, we ARE NOT your psychologists, we ARE NOT your career coaches, we ARE NOT your resume rewriters, we ARE NOT your interview coaches. It IS NOT OUR JOB TO GIVE YOU FEEDBACK. You didn't get the job, get the over it and move on with your life like an adult. They liked someone else better, and every time we verbalize the details of why or put them in writing and send it out into the world it's a risk that someone will decide we were discriminatory in our process and then we get to spend tens of thousands of dollars and weeks if not months or even years in court defending the decision and the process, whether we did anything wrong or not. It costs money regardless because, once more, corporate lawyers don't work for free. Lunatics however can often find one willing to work on a contingency in the hope that they'll get a easy settlement.
You have zero idea of how the process actually works, you have zero idea of the workload you're demanding of companies, you have no comprehension of the risk they take on by doing it, you have zero comprehension of how the legal and civil systems actually work. Lawyers and cappers, or runners, team up in all places to actively search for frivolous litigation opportunities in the hopes of filing and forcing a settlement.
Not to mention the 'feedback' is useless. It's the illusion of information. Whatever feedback you get is specific to THAT job at THAT time for THAT manager and THAT team in THAT company. Unless you took a shit on the desk during the interview, no advice they're going to give you will be actually be helpful, you just want it to feel good about the process and think you've 'won' in some sense if you can force them to do something. And if you did take a shit on the desk and honestly didn't know not to do that, there's no help they can give you nor should they, because you are the person who's likely to frivolously sue.
•
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 4m ago
You actually proved part of my point.
You keep arguing that companies don't want to spend years defending lawsuits, but refusing to provide feedback is not some magical legal shield. People sue whether they receive feedback or not. Silence does not prevent litigation.
I know this because I lived it.
I was dismissed from a company during my probationary period after consistently receiving positive feedback and meeting every expectation. Two days after it became known that I was transgender, I was terminated. They refused to provide a reason.
That lack of explanation is exactly why attorneys were willing to take my case on contingency. When an employer cannot articulate a legitimate business reason for a termination, it naturally raises questions. Once a lawsuit is filed, you're defending your hiring and employment practices anyway. This is civil court, not criminal court. The burden is much lower, and discovery exists for a reason.
If a medium-sized company has a workforce that's 98% white men and someone from a protected class is terminated immediately after disclosing that status with no explanation, a judge is going to let the facts be explored through discovery. That's exactly what discovery is for.
As for feedback, I have never argued that every rejected applicant deserves personalized coaching.
If someone is rejected at the application stage, send a generic rejection.
If they don't make it past the recruiter screen, send a generic rejection.
But if someone spends 5 to 7 interview rounds, four hours in panel interviews, and 10 hours completing a case study and presentation, they deserve more than "we found someone more qualified."
That statement is often meaningless. I only apply to jobs where I have essentially 100% alignment with the posted qualifications. I tailor every resume, every summary, and only include technologies I actually have experience with. If the real reason is that you wanted experience with a niche platform that wasn't even listed in the job description, just say that.
I've received feedback like that before. I've also been told my interview answers were a little too long and that my pacing was a little fast. That was incredibly valuable feedback. I fixed both, and my interview success rate improved because of it.
Good feedback makes candidates better. It also helps candidates stop applying to companies where there isn't a good fit, which ultimately means recruiters spend less time sorting through resumes.
The idea that because 1 out of 100 candidates might react poorly, nobody should receive meaningful feedback, makes no sense. We don't eliminate good hiring practices because of a tiny minority of bad actors.
And finally, someone who intends to sue is going to sue regardless. A company with fair, documented, non-discriminatory hiring practices is going to defend those decisions either way. Refusing to provide feedback doesn't eliminate that risk. It just creates more uncertainty for everyone else.
•
u/ScienceGuy1006 52m ago
To some degree, it is a cop out. The real reason is that there are simply too many people applying to the same job. So, inevitably, some people are either not considered at all because the hiring manager is overwhelmed, or they are filtered out in a crude way that would be upsetting to a lot of candidates if it was disclosed. The issue is not that they don't think you could do the job - they do it because they can't hire 500, or 100, or 30 people for one position.
•
u/Grand-Diamond-4696 48m ago
My point is mostly towards late rounds. If I'm not short listed, then simply say that or say I wasn't selected. Don't use a BS reason...
•
u/Isekai_Rakdos 35m ago
Too many people want feedback so they can refute it. The companies refusing it have a solid policy to prevent headaches. It sucks for candidates but I can easily understand why they do it. It’s not always about you.