As jobs become harder to come by, more rejected applicants might look for ways to sue employers. Here’s an example of two candidates who were convinced they were the most qualified, and claimed bias when they weren’t hired.

Read the facts and decide: Who won this real-life case?

The facts:

Two candidates born in Egypt applied for several managerial jobs with a company but weren’t offered any of the positions. The company used a consistent interview process and gave each interviewee a score based on how they answered a predetermined list of questions. The two Egyptian candidates scored at or near the bottom.

The positions were all filled by Caucasian applicants. When they weren’t hired, the Egyptian candidates sued for national origin discrimination.

The candidates said:

The questions asked in the interview weren’t related to potential job performance. For example, the company placed most of the focus on leadership skills rather than technical experience. If “better” questions were asked, they said, they would have gotten higher scores.

The company said:

Candidates don’t get to decide what questions they’re asked in an interview — that’s the company’s job. Questions asked were directly related to managerial skills, because that’s what it felt was most important.

Applicants were evaluated on the same criteria, and the best candidates were chosen.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why: Summing up the case, the judge noted, “We do not second-guess an employer’s hiring standards.” The rejected candidates didn’t offer any evidence of bias — they just gave their opinions on the company’s interviewing process.

Fortunately, the company kept records of the interviews to prove the hired candidates were the top scorers — even if the rejected applicants disagreed with the criteria the scores were based on.

Cite: Pathare v. Klein

Tags: discrimination, interview, national origin, rejected candidates