Managerial Miscues and Multiple Claims of Discrimination a/k/a This Is Not Your Personal Candy Store
By Michael Cork
The cold-caller revealed that the manager who conducted interviews was in his late twenties to early thirties, single, a member of a racial minority, and apparently heterosexual. He added that the med-tech employees were uniformly female, single, in their early to mid-twenties, and members of the same racial minority as the hiring manager. The applicant suspected that the hiring manager was basing hiring decisions on the potential for romance. And the applicant's suspicions were bolstered after a chance encounter with an existing med-tech in the hallway, after the interview. Yes, indeed, the applicant was not hired, because, arguably, he was the wrong sex, the wrong race, too old, and had those children to deal with.
If Chris Matthews was a plaintiff's employment lawyer, these facts would give him a "thrill up his leg." One interview, followed by a rejection and some valuable information from an existing employee provided viable claims based on sex, race, age, and marital/family status.
But I cannot help but slip on my management hat and wonder who this guy reported to, and where human resources was. This manager—no, this employer—needed an experienced HR person to establish some hiring parameters, to pre-screen applicants, and to remove Rudolph Valentino from the hiring process. Because in addition to the aforementioned claims by the rejected applicant, it was only a matter of time before the sexual harassment claims started to roll-in from the existing med-techs. And don't forget the claims by former med-techs he terminated because they rejected his advances. Finally, this employer was a prime candidate for a "no romance" policy prohibiting relationships between superiors and subordinates.