Latest news with #internalcandidate

New York Times

Should I Blow the Whistle in a Hiring Process Biased in My Favor?

I have been out of work for four months. I recently had an interview for a management-level position in my field, during which the interviewer asked a number of questions regarding my marital status, parental status and spouse's occupation. I've spent most of my career in management, and the questions are clearly inappropriate and at odds with civil rights protections. I answered the questions, because I knew the responses would be in my favor: I'm a middle-aged guy whose spouse works remotely and son is in college. I'm aware of an internal candidate for the job, a younger mother of two school-age children, and the interviewer made comments about divided responsibilities and time commitments. I kind of need the job, which raises two scenarios. In the first, I withdraw from the process. Should I notify the internal candidate of the legal violation, because I suspect (although have not confirmed) that the same questions were asked of her? In the second, I accept the position. How should I deal with the other candidate, who would be my subordinate, knowing that a likely E.E.O.C. violation tainted my hire? And additionally, should I notify the E.E.O.C. myself, regardless of whether I continue with this company? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: If you're thinking about taking action, you would be wise to talk with an employment lawyer. But the questions you mention plainly have no place in a job interview. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines are explicit about this: Such questions 'may be regarded as evidence of intent to discriminate.' Let's assume, in any case, that your suspicion is justified: that the company's questions crossed a line and did so not out of clumsy curiosity but in a way that tilted the scales against the internal candidate, a younger mother with two school-age kids. Maybe, as you have reason to wonder, the interviewer pressed her on whether she would be able to handle the job with her 'divided responsibilities.' This could well count as evidence of discrimination. Yet if you got the offer, you still couldn't be sure that it was because you were judged the 'safe' candidate. You don't actually know what happened in her interview or how management was weighing the candidates. Maybe you were always going to be the preferred pick, for reasons that have nothing to do with family logistics. Suppose, though, that you're offered the job, and it's clear that the process was wrongly stacked in your favor. The moral calculus gets thornier. Is it right to accept a job you need and are qualified for if you know the offer was tainted by bias? Turning down such a position is an especially steep price for you to pay. The internal candidate keeps her job, even if she loses out on the better one she was hoping for. That's significant, but it's not quite the same as going without a paycheck. If you were positive that you were offered the job because of unlawful discrimination, I would tell you to decline and notify both the internal candidate and the E.E.O.C. what happened. The company should be held to account and made to reform its ways. 'Conference, conciliation and persuasion' — the usual E.E.O.C. route — happens only if someone calls out the wrongdoing. But right now you don't have that certainty. Given this, I don't think you need to torch your own prospects. You may take the job if it's offered. Once you're a manager, you'll treat your subordinate with the respect she deserves. You don't owe her a confession about your suspicions, if suspicions are all you have. What you do owe her, and every colleague, is to push for a culture where these questions are never asked of job applicants again. A Bonus Question A couple of years ago, I learned that my uncle sexually abused his three daughters when they were young. As someone who was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child, I find his actions deeply appalling on many levels. Whenever he calls my mother, she accepts his calls, most likely because he's her brother, but keeps them short. My father is currently in palliative care, and we're expecting his passing soon. Although I do not want my uncle to attend the funeral, my mother won't exclude him, even though he was excluded from his own wife's funeral. Is it acceptable for me to ignore him, as my sister-in-law plans to do? I'm uncertain about how my uncle will be received by his remaining siblings, and I don't want the funeral to become a day remembered for the wrong reasons. — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: Your sister-in-law has the right idea. This isn't an occasion for your appalling relative to be affirmed or accepted, but neither is it an occasion for confronting him. Don't let the day become about this man. The focus should be on the person you're mourning. Readers Respond The previous question was from a reader who is tired of a friend talking about wanting to escape the country's current political climate by moving abroad. She wrote: I have a wealthy friend (not billions, but well over $20 million) who talks almost incessantly about leaving the country because of her and her family's concerns about the current political situation. Nearly every week, it's another 'Check this one out!' — always accompanied by a link to a villa in the south of France or a seaside four-bedroom condo overlooking the coast of Spain. I'm not the sort to let money drive a relationship; I don't defer to wealthy people, and I wouldn't expect deference if the roles were reversed. So how do you navigate things when you're simply tired of hearing the same conversation on wash, rinse, repeat? I can't just say: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' That would only create anger. But 'Have you thought about how these comments affect others?' feels condescending. I'm not sure it's appropriate to tell her to stop, or how to do it. — Name Withheld In his response, the Ethicist noted: I can imagine other misgivings you might have about these upscale escape fantasies. When the political weather in your country turns threatening, there's much to be said for staying put, if you safely can, and trying to make things better. Given her resources, your friend might wrest herself from the Sotheby's International Realty website and spend more time reviewing political campaigns that could benefit from her backing. … You don't have to make it a confrontation. There are plenty of ways to signal the realities she's exasperatingly deaf to. The next time she sends you a link to a coastal villa, you might respond with a listing for a studio apartment in a Communist-era block in Bucharest — ample stair climbing, intermittent hot water and panoramic views of concrete — explaining that it better fits your budget. If she's miffed for a minute, that's the price of honesty. And a small one, surely, compared to that spread in Cap Ferrat. Reread the full question and answer here. ⬥ The recommendation that the writer shoot back an equally inappropriate rental suggestion was just petty and passive-aggressive, serving only to irk, if not confuse, the clueless wealthy friend. Honesty among friends is always best. — Bonnie ⬥ I agree that the writer's friend's 'humble brag' is obnoxious and out of touch. I've had friends and relatives like this (in a different tax bracket) over the years who have consistently mentioned vacations that they knew I could never afford as a single mom. I came to wonder if their intentions were really that innocent. To me, it did start to feel meanspirited and condescending … 'nice nasty,' as my grandmother used to call it. Hmmm. Maybe the writer should find some more sensitive friends? — Pier ⬥ Not a fan of the passive-aggressive solution the Ethicist suggests. Better to be straightforward and have an honest conversation with the clueless friend. Something on the order of: 'Deciding to leave our country rather than remaining and working to improve things is absolutely your right. Still, for those of us not inclined to seek that solution, regardless of our personal reasons, we just can't get into your weekly searches. Could you wait until you've actually found your dream home and share that with us? Sharing your joy and the start of your new adventure is something we can celebrate with you.' A polite way of saying, 'We're just not into your ongoing real estate search.' — Emme ⬥ I love what the Ethicist suggests about sending her friend the picture of a meager apartment in Bucharest. That's good! But I don't understand what's wrong with what the writer herself came up with: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' I think that is a direct and genuine response with just the right amount of pique. —Mary Anne ⬥ I think the suggestion that the questioner respond with an 'idealized post-communist flat' was misguided. I think a better suggestion would be to respond with a more modest listing in a nonexotic location that reflects both the economic realities of the questioner and the realities of European life at that finance level. — Brian ⬥ To me, the issue is not what exotic locale to flee to, it's the focus on fleeing, and on that being something some of us may aspire to. My suggested response would be, 'Whatever the situation is, I'm not moving, so please don't send me any more real estate suggestions.' — Linda