• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Post interview request by candidate for government positon discrimination

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

kolabok

Member
What is the name of your state (Virginia)?


I can find little to nothing about the topic. I can only assume in the public sector aka governmental jobs, that that is the norm of providing upon request, but is it mandated by any regulations, rules of conduct and or even discriminatory for the appointing hiring entity to respond upon request?
I know of one instance in the government workplace, where this actually happened, but I do not know if it is a law, rule or simply courtesy on behalf of the appointing authority to provide to the post interview candidate. The fact that it was an in house employee requesting and receiving this post interview feedback, makes me think it would also be applicable to the candidates on the outside looking in as well.
I am expecting my answer will be, they can do whatever they like and get away with it, including transparency in government hiring practices without remedy

thanks
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Are you asking if they are required to tell you what you did wrong in your interview?
 

commentator

Senior Member
Exactly what is it you are looking for? What do you mean by post interview for "position discrimination?" In other words, you were interviewed for a position and you feel you were discriminated against, and you want some sort of copy of the interview or reason you were not hired so you can decide if you were discriminated against? We're going to assume, though you did not say, that this is a state position. If it is a county or federal position, the general form will be similar with slight variations.

In the first place, there are few places in hiring that are anywhere near so carefully monitored for discrimination as federal, state and local government jobs. There are federal requirements. These have been in place for years. Unlike private industry, they are unlikely to make stupid or blatant discrimination errors. They've got whole departments in their Human Resources and hiring agencies that do nothing but keep this stuff legal and get involved with any and all possible discrimination issues. If you want to take on the state or the fed or even a city or county government for discrimination, it's something to do with a good employment attorney. It's certainly worth discussing with one of these. And if they don't see anything there, there probably isn't anything there.

You likely know about civil service and the rather complicated and highly regulated job selection process of any state position. So what job posting are you wanting to know about? Have you already had an interview for this position and want to know why you were not hired? Of course you know that is not the type of stuff that is going to be on the agency's website for general consumption, right? You can't get this sort of information just by looking it up.

There will be somewhere, I promise, a list of open state positions at any given time. More than likely, there will be open application taking for any vacant state position posted on their state HR website. These postings will include the qualifications for this position and usually an application deadline. Many positions in state government require a civil service test. Those can usually be taken by candidates at any time. Usually one has to announce the job title of the position they are applying for, and possibly get on a register of available candidates for this position. Then at the time there is an opening the hiring agent for the particular department and position the hiring person can do one of two things. There is first of all, a promotional register of people who already work for the department who are interested in this position. This means people inside the department will have access to and much better changes to get positions that become available. If the employer asks for a promotional register, they only need to look at the top three/five/two candidates and the job may never become available for application or interviews from the general public. This of course means that everyone who does not already work for the department is automatically discriminated against. But this has been determined to be legitimate for them to do.

If this is an entry level position, which is the usual way people get into state government work, or if this is a specialized position that no one inside is interested in, then the hiring agency will "call for a register" and is obligated to contact the top so many people (five/three/two) on the register. If they are interested, they are offered an interview. The hiring agents are required to interview until they have given themselves a certain number of choices. Usually the employer will be required to provide the state's HR and EEOC office the reasons for hiring candidate two instead of candidate three or candidate one or candidate five. You may be able to get this result by checking with the state HR. I would suspect this is what you knew of someone getting to see, though usually it takes a request by an interested party such as an attorney.

Hint. Since the state is so self conscious about avoiding the appearance of discrimination, and is always federally required to give job preference to certain groups (such as disabled veterans) there isn't likely going to be any clear cut evidence of discrimination in any of those reasons for not hiring one or the other candidates. Usually "more qualified" is tough to prove, tough to argue with, and that's the reason they try to stick close to.

There are categories of state jobs, however, that do not require civil service. These are the highest few positions in each department and they usually go as political appointments. Likewise, when administrations change, or the governor or a state official is displeased, these people can be dumped unceremoniously, with very little justification required ( just as they always can in private industry). You get no qualifications, no protests of discrimination for who gets the political plums, though in these modern days and times, even the new administrations will try to pretend they're giving EEOC consideration and including a few highly qualified people who are EEOC friendly in some way.
 

kolabok

Member
The question is,

Are federal, state and local forms of government required to give a job applicant on the outside, who was not selected for employment after the interview, a post interview feedback upon request of the interviewee?


I know this has been the case with in house employees applying for the same job, after receiving a thank you note saying, but we have another candidate better suited for our needs. The employee who did not get the position received a post interview feedback from the hiring panel. Seems to reason it would work for the joe or jane on the street applying for the same job and after being interviewed, who was not selected.

After all, the blanket statement, please apply again for future opportunities, seems absurd if you can not get feedback from the first interview experience.
Does one just guess what went wrong and profusely apply for jobs?
 

kolabok

Member
Are you asking if they are required to tell you what you did wrong in your interview?[/QUOTE

I don't think it is what went wrong, but rather what were the positive and negative aspects of the individual who was interviewed and did not get the job. Can one request from the hiring manager and or panelists feedback in the governmental agencies who posted the job and interviewed applicants...
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The question is,

Are federal, state and local forms of government required to give a job applicant on the outside, who was not selected for employment after the interview, a post interview feedback upon request of the interviewee?
In essence, you're just wondering if ANY governmental entity anywhere in the whole of the U.S. has to give post-interview feedback. Thanks for narrowing that down for us. :rolleyes:
 

kolabok

Member
Exactly what is it you are looking for? What do you mean by post interview for "position discrimination?" In other words, you were interviewed for a position and you feel you were discriminated against, and you want some sort of copy of the interview or reason you were not hired so you can decide if you were discriminated against? We're going to assume, though you did not say, that this is a state position. If it is a county or federal position, the general form will be similar with slight variations.

In the first place, there are few places in hiring that are anywhere near so carefully monitored for discrimination as federal, state and local government jobs. There are federal requirements. These have been in place for years. Unlike private industry, they are unlikely to make stupid or blatant discrimination errors. They've got whole departments in their Human Resources and hiring agencies that do nothing but keep this stuff legal and get involved with any and all possible discrimination issues. If you want to take on the state or the fed or even a city or county government for discrimination, it's something to do with a good employment attorney. It's certainly worth discussing with one of these. And if they don't see anything there, there probably isn't anything there.

You likely know about civil service and the rather complicated and highly regulated job selection process of any state position. So what job posting are you wanting to know about? Have you already had an interview for this position and want to know why you were not hired? Of course you know that is not the type of stuff that is going to be on the agency's website for general consumption, right? You can't get this sort of information just by looking it up.

There will be somewhere, I promise, a list of open state positions at any given time. More than likely, there will be open application taking for any vacant state position posted on their state HR website. These postings will include the qualifications for this position and usually an application deadline. Many positions in state government require a civil service test. Those can usually be taken by candidates at any time. Usually one has to announce the job title of the position they are applying for, and possibly get on a register of available candidates for this position. Then at the time there is an opening the hiring agent for the particular department and position the hiring person can do one of two things. There is first of all, a promotional register of people who already work for the department who are interested in this position. This means people inside the department will have access to and much better changes to get positions that become available. If the employer asks for a promotional register, they only need to look at the top three/five/two candidates and the job may never become available for application or interviews from the general public. This of course means that everyone who does not already work for the department is automatically discriminated against. But this has been determined to be legitimate for them to do.

If this is an entry level position, which is the usual way people get into state government work, or if this is a specialized position that no one inside is interested in, then the hiring agency will "call for a register" and is obligated to contact the top so many people (five/three/two) on the register. If they are interested, they are offered an interview. The hiring agents are required to interview until they have given themselves a certain number of choices. Usually the employer will be required to provide the state's HR and EEOC office the reasons for hiring candidate two instead of candidate three or candidate one or candidate five. You may be able to get this result by checking with the state HR. I would suspect this is what you knew of someone getting to see, though usually it takes a request by an interested party such as an attorney.

Hint. Since the state is so self conscious about avoiding the appearance of discrimination, and is always federally required to give job preference to certain groups (such as disabled veterans) there isn't likely going to be any clear cut evidence of discrimination in any of those reasons for not hiring one or the other candidates. Usually "more qualified" is tough to prove, tough to argue with, and that's the reason they try to stick close to.

There are categories of state jobs, however, that do not require civil service. These are the highest few positions in each department and they usually go as political appointments. Likewise, when administrations change, or the governor or a state official is displeased, these people can be dumped unceremoniously, with very little justification required ( just as they always can in private industry). You get no qualifications, no protests of discrimination for who gets the political plums, though in these modern days and times, even the new administrations will try to pretend they're giving EEOC consideration and including a few highly qualified people who are EEOC friendly in some way.
I get what you are saying!

But is it or not a requirement for governmental agencies to respond to a request for feedback from an interview that the candidate participated in and did not get the position, upon request of the applicant for critiquing purposes so that the candidate can be better prepared for the next available position?

When they (the government agency) says, keep applying for positions, seems self defeating if you can not get any feedback...
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Are federal, state and local forms of government required to give a job applicant on the outside, who was not selected for employment after the interview, a post interview feedback upon request of the interviewee?

No. No employer, either public or private, has any such legal obligation. It really is that simple.

You can ask, and if they choose to they may tell you. If they opt not to, there is no law you can invoke that will force them to. It is entirely up to them what they tell you about your interview. That is the case with all employers, both public and private.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
The question is,

Are federal, state and local forms of government required to give a job applicant on the outside, who was not selected for employment after the interview, a post interview feedback upon request of the interviewee?
For the federal government, the answer is clearly no. There is no obligation for a federal agency to provide feedback either to internal or external candidates. That answer is the same for state governments. It is also true for the local governments that I’m familiar with. There might be some local government somewhere that requires this, but it would be very, very unusual.
 

commentator

Senior Member
If you are not seeking to show that you have been illegally discriminated against, only to receive feedback so that you can improve your chances of being hired, I can honestly tell you that at the state level, this is NOT something you are going to get from the person/department that interviewed you. There is NO legal requirement that such feedback be provided. And it probably would NOT sit well with the powers that be if a supervisor who had interviewed you did informally provide such feedback, or even mentioned why you weren't hired to someone inside the department who then passed it on to you.

And sometimes, in state positions, and I assume that the federal and local entities are very similar in this regard, the person who does the interviewing has less than total control over who gets the job, because of other factors that you do not know about. Example: A supervisor in a department in state government that I knew about was told to give a "courtesy interview" to a person who was very politically connected. There were two other imminently better qualified applicants on the registers. The job required travel, negotiation, overnights, extensive public speaking, etc. which the courtesy candidate ( attractive Caucasian female) did not want to do and was not experienced at doing. The supervisor recommended the highly qualified veteran. He was told to change the job description to fit the requirements of the courtesy interview candidate and GIVE HER THE JOB on no uncertain terms, or else lose the position for their department. She was somebody's girlfriend, somebody's daughter, somebody's wife.....that's sort of the way the cookie crumbles. Good news was, she hated the job, and after a few months, they were able to re interview and hire the more qualified of the other two candidates.

When applying for state and federal and local jobs, I would not assume I'd done something wrong, or that I was not determined a good fit for some reason, and would just keep applying persistently until the time is right and there's no friend or family member of an influential person who gets the job instead of you, (or contact all the influential people YOU can come up with) and eventually, you'll be the one they go for. The longer I worked in job placement, interviewing, etc. the more fatalistic I became about it. If the time is right, it works. If it isn't working, it may not be right for you.
 
Last edited:

kolabok

Member
If you are not seeking to show that you have been illegally discriminated against, only to receive feedback so that you can improve your chances of being hired, I can honestly tell you that at the state level, this is NOT something you are going to get from the person/department that interviewed you. There is NO legal requirement that such feedback be provided. And it probably would NOT sit well with the powers that be if a supervisor who had interviewed you did informally provide such feedback, or even mentioned why you weren't hired to someone inside the department who then passed it on to you.

And sometimes, in state positions, and I assume that the federal and local entities are very similar in this regard, the person who does the interviewing has less than total control over who gets the job, because of other factors that you do not know about. Example: A supervisor in a department in state government that I knew about was told to give a "courtesy interview" to a person who was very politically connected. There were two other imminently better qualified applicants on the registers. The job required travel, negotiation, overnights, extensive public speaking, etc. which the courtesy candidate ( attractive Caucasian female) did not want to do and was not experienced at doing. The supervisor recommended the highly qualified veteran. He was told to change the job description to fit the requirements of the courtesy interview candidate and GIVE HER THE JOB on no uncertain terms, or else lose the position for their department. She was somebody's girlfriend, somebody's daughter, somebody's wife.....that's sort of the way the cookie crumbles. Good news was, she hated the job, and after a few months, they were able to re interview and hire the more qualified of the other two candidates.

When applying for state and federal and local jobs, I would not assume I'd done something wrong, or that I was not determined a good fit for some reason, and would just keep applying persistently until the time is right and there's no friend or family member of an influential person who gets the job instead of you, (or contact all the influential people YOU can come up with) and eventually, you'll be the one they go for. The longer I worked in job placement, interviewing, etc. the more fatalistic I became about it. If the time is right, it works. If it isn't working, it may not be right for you.
could be a long wait when careers span a lifetime.

thanks for the info everyone
 

Shadowbunny

Queen of the Not-Rights
As someone who has sat on hiring panels for federal positions, I've researched extensively what the process is. And nowhere is there an edict that we must provide feedback to those interviewed. And for that, I'm thankful. Not because we've done something wrong, but because it would be painfully time-consuming to do so.

The other issue is this: giving honest feedback isn't fun. At all. I don't want to tell an interviewee that they ramble, didn't answer the questions asked, gave nonsensical answers, or gave odd answers. And for the interviewers who did well, but just not AS well as the ultimate winner? Well, that kinda stinks, too. Because I also don't want to tell someone "you did everything right, but you just weren't good enough to come out on top."

Your postings here are not easy to understand; you tend to ramble. A lot. If you come across that way in an interview, I can understand why you weren't selected.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
And as someone who, upon a couple of occasions when I was very young, made the mistake of actually giving some feedback to a failed applicant, let me tell you that few candidates will pay attention and treat it as a learning experience. Rather, they will take the opportunity to explain, usually at length, how the interviewer completely misunderstood and what they REALLY said/did/meant experienced was and how we should now rescind the offer that had already been made to someone else because now that we understood that the failed applicant was really the best choice, of course we'd be giving them an offer now and...

No, thank you. Not going down THAT road again.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
The other issue is this: giving honest feedback isn't fun. At all. I don't want to tell an interviewee that they ramble, didn't answer the questions asked, gave nonsensical answers, or gave odd answers. And for the interviewers who did well, but just not AS well as the ultimate winner? Well, that kinda stinks, too. Because I also don't want to tell someone "you did everything right, but you just weren't good enough to come out on top."
When I graduated from college many years ago, the first job I went for was a very highly coveted finance position with a top Fortune 50 company, Company A. I was lucky, I was one of the 12 people selected to interview for one of the four positions that were open. I flew out for the interview at their expense and had what I thought was a good series of interviews. Company A had just taken over Company B in a merger, and the job was with a defense unit of Company B. As a result, I interviewed with officials from both companies. I did not get the job and called my contact at Company A to ask what I might have done better to get the job. The answer was, I think, very honest, though not helpful. He told me that all the candidates were extremely well qualified and quite similar in many respects: graduated from top universities with steller grades, etc. He told me that the interviewers from Company B loved me and wanted to select me for the job. They’d be the people I'd actually be working for. But he said Company A, having just took over, was taking control of the process, wanted to put its mark on the acquired company and select the type of candidates it has always liked, and the Company A people got to make the final call.

So what was it that Company A did not like? I was the sole candidate that was not from the East Coast, and Company A had a bias against anyone not from the East Coast. When he said that, I recalled an odd question from one of the interviewers that focused on just that, asking me if I could fit in on the East Coast. That particular panel treated me a bit like I might have been some country bumpkin. That’s what told me his explanation to me rang true. He told me I only got the interview in the first place because I was the most persistent of the lot. Company B liked that; Company A not so much. I wasn’t from the East Coast; I simply wasn’t Company A’s “kind of person.” Well discrimination based on not having an East Coast background is not illegal, so Company A could make that call. It told me nothing about how I might have done better (and I’m not sure I could have) but it told me a lot about large corporate politics that has served me well since.

All that to say that hiring decisions, particularly in large organizations, often may have as much to do with the politics of the organization doing the hiring as it does with the qualifications of the people applying for the job. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. You just have to recognize that sometimes they just won’t see you as a good fit for their organization, even with steller qualifications.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top