Interviews are a tricky thing. The candidate who looks best on paper might drop to the bottom of the barrel once you meet face-to-face. But what happens when an unsuccessful applicant cries “bias”? Read the facts and decide – Who won this case?

The facts: A female employee applied for a promotion at her company. She was put into the pool of qualified applicants and interviewed. In the end, though, a male co-worker got the job. The woman sued, claiming she was most qualified, but was over-looked because of her gender.

The employer said: While the woman did have an impressive resume and a good employment history, the interview was the real kicker. Simply put, the male applicant’s performance was better and the hiring managers thought he was the best fit for the position.

Who won? The employer.

Why: In a statement that’s music to HR managers’ ears, the court said its job wasn’t to “act as a super personnel department that second guesses employers’ business judgments.”

Instead, the judge looked at the hiring process and found it to be fair. The woman’s credentials were good enough to put her in the “qualified” category. But after that, it was all about the interview. And in that interview, all applicants were asked the same set of questions and evaluated accordingly. Therefore, there was no evidence of any bias.

Lesson for HR: Hiring decisions are always going to somewhat subjective. (In this case, the woman “seemed unable to endure the stress of the interview,” which was a bad sign since she was applying for a stressful managerial position.) But as long as the process stays consistent, it’ll most likely hold up in court.

Cite: Santana v. City and County of Denver

Tags: bias, gender, interview, lawsuit