1y
We have documented email exchanges between the candidate and our internal recruiter, in which the candidate determined the date and time for the interview. Based on this agreed-upon schedule, the recruiter sent both an email and a calendar invite to the candidate and the interviewer, our COO.
At the scheduled time, the COO attempted to reach the candidate as per the invite. However, the candidate did not answer the call. When the COO followed up via email, the candidate responded with several comments, including speculation that the COO may have “misdialed” and claiming he was “never told that anyone would be calling.” These statements are contradicted by our email records.
Later, the candidate attempted to reschedule the interview. However, by that point, we had already seen enough to make a determination. Our hiring process evaluates professionalism, communication, and accountability, and based on this interaction, we chose not to proceed.
Our decision was not based on discrimination in any form. We have no knowledge of the candidate’s background, nor would it have been a factor. Our sole focus is on a candidate’s skill set and willingness to contribute to our company.
One of the interview questions we intended to ask was: “Describe a time when something did not go as planned and how you handled the situation.” In this case, we observed firsthand how the candidate responded when things did not go as planned. Instead of demonstrating accountability or adaptability, the candidate deflected responsibility, as shown in the examples above.
Furthermore, the false claims of discrimination made in the candidate’s Glassdoor review only reaffirm that we made the right decision. Integrity and professionalism are core to our hiring process, and misrepresenting facts to suit a narrative is not aligned with the values we seek in a candidate.
Given these factors, we stand by our decision that the candidate was not the right fit for our organization.
