We all write job descriptions and know how important they are. But how much importance do we give to the section on "minimum qualifications"? Not enough. That's certainly what happened to an employment law attorney we know who received a resume from an exceptional person who did not meet the minimum qualifications the attorney had written herself for the job.
The candidate was from a third-tier law school. She was in the bottom 50% of her class. But her resume was amazing. She’d been in an all-woman rock band and played with many of the great musicians we all know. The attorney figured, “She’s probably a terrific person, she’s willing to give all that up to be a lawyer, I want to give her a shot.”
So she flew her to the East Coast from California for three days of interviews. Turns out the candidate was a member of about four protected classes, and she was incredibly impressive. But with dozens of Ivy League candidates in the top 10% of their class vying for the job, the attorney realized there was no way she could hire the candidate. So she had to call her up and say, “I’m sorry, but I can’t hire you because you don’t meet the minimum qualifications of this job.”
Predictably, the woman replied, “You knew that when you read my resume, so why did you bring me in? Could it be that when you met me you realized I was a member of several protected classes, and you didn’t like that?” The woman didn’t sue, but if she had it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the attorney to prove that bias hadn’t influenced her decision.This is a great example of how a well-intentioned recruiter nearly provoked a lawsuit by making a simple mistake – bringing in an "interesting" job candidate who didn't meet the minimum requirements in a job description.
Here's the bottom line about job descriptions: the more narrowly you define the job, the narrower your pool of qualified candidates, and the less chance you'll be sued for discrimination.
Comments