Is it legal to imply that a candidate is already chosen?

[JusticeAdvice]

The question: Is it legal to imply that a candidate is already chosen before giving an interview in California?

The explanation:

I know someone (Mary) who works for a non-profit organization (a church) who at work, found out that another person would be quitting and therefore they'd need a replacement. She found this out by speaking with the person who is quitting themselves (Susan). Susan told Mary that if she's interested, she should speak with her boss, Josh. 1 week after hearing about this, Mary speaks with Josh who tells her to email him since she's interested. She does so the same day. Josh, the very next day replies:

"I am getting all the info I need to proceed with hiring the position and will know more soon. I am interviewing for the position and would love to meet up if we get a chance. I do have some good ideas about where I want to go with this, but it would be great to talk."

2 days later, before even interviewing Mary, Josh sends her an email saying:

"I want to be up front with you, I have a strong candidate and will likely be extending an offer very soon. However, I would be willing to spend a half hour hearing more about your interest and skills, as long as you understand that I am leaning in this direction."

Mary was never even given a clear picture of the position and the position doesn't appear to be posted. Is this legal in California? Thanks a lot.

 

[las365]

Does the non-profit receive state or federal funding for the program in which the position is available? If so, there may be some requirement to post the position, but there may not.

Even if there is a requirement to post the position, the organization can still post the job and then hire whomever they please as long as rejection of a particular candidate is not due to illegal discrimination.

 

[Hot Topic]

Mary isn't concerned that the job wasn't posted so that anyone who didn't have a heads up about it like Mary did was deprived of applying. She's upset that Josh was honest with her in letting her know that he was leaning toward hiring someone other than Mary. I'm pretty sure that had Josh met with Mary and hired Mary instead of the other person, Mary wouldn't have said a word about not posting the job or the lack of a clear job description (which she should have gotten from Susan).

 

[las365]

Mary isn't concerned that the job wasn't posted so that anyone who didn't have a heads up about it like Mary did was deprived of applying. She's upset that Josh was honest with her in letting her know that he was leaning toward hiring someone other than Mary. I'm pretty sure that had Josh met with Mary and hired Mary instead of the other person, Mary wouldn't have said a word about not posting the job or the lack of a clear job description (which she should have gotten from Susan).

So true!!!!

 

[cbg]

Is Mary suggesting that Josh should NOT have been honest with her?

For Pete's sake. Of COURSE it was legal. In all 50 states.