> All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound.
Imagine you are GC and think about it from a risk/reward standpoint.
If you let people give feedback, given enough hires, some hiring manager will likely say something that draws a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it is a reasonable case, that's still time, money and distraction.
And what does the company get in return? People who they didn't hire might think slightly better of it.
When you model it in terms of corporate incentives, the decision almost makes itself.
Not to mention the fact that even in the smallest cities there are several attorneys willing to take employment lawsuits on spec (lose get nothing, win get 30-40% of the award). If you're in a major city like NYC there will be thousands.
The math is pretty simple, Company has to pay its attorneys no matter what. Lawyer is working on spec, the client pays nothing out of pocket. Why would Company spend $400k on a trial that they might lose (and then pay out a 6-figure award on top of that) if they can just pay Lawyer $25k with an NDA and be done? Lawyer gets $7500 for a few days work spread over a couple months, interviewee gets almost $20k for a couple depositions, Company just "saved" $375k or potentially a lot more.
That's a hell of a lot of risk to take on just to send people an email saying "we thought it was bad that you bit the hiring manager." Just saying "we decided not to move forward with your application at this time" eliminates that risk entirely, including the $25k.
Imagine you are GC and think about it from a risk/reward standpoint.
If you let people give feedback, given enough hires, some hiring manager will likely say something that draws a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it is a reasonable case, that's still time, money and distraction.
And what does the company get in return? People who they didn't hire might think slightly better of it.
When you model it in terms of corporate incentives, the decision almost makes itself.