Reprinted from the October 1, 2006 issue of MANAGER’S LEGAL BULLETIN, a widely read employment law newsletter that communicates legal guidelines to managers through real-life dialogue and concrete examples. Click here to view a sample issue, get more information or sign up for a risk-free subscription.

Questionable Hiring Interview Questions

Read through the following slice of conversation between manager Jason Blanchard and job applicant Ryan Storms. It’s dotted with good and bad moves on the part of Blanchard. See if you can pick them out. Compare your reactions to the scorecard at the end.

SETTING THE SCENE

Storms was the company’s Budget Director when he decided to voluntarily retire at age 57. Blanchard tapped Storms’s subordinate to replace him. Storms elected to receive his company-sponsored pension and profit-sharing accounts in a lump sum. Six years later, having lost a substantial amount of money in the stock market, the now 63-year-old Storms applied for the Accounting Manager position that opened up in the department.

PICKING UP THE CONVERSATION

“Things have changed a lot since you’ve been here,” Blanchard warned him. “With all those Enron-type scandals and the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we’ve had to institute new compliance processes. The law’s highly complicated.”

“I’ve been following all those stories in the news. Not only because I’m still interested in what’s happening in the finance field, but also because I lost a lot of money in the stock market because of one of those companies! I wish I could sue those CEOs to get back all the retirement money I lost, rather than have to rejoin the rat race,” Storms laughed. “Especially because Sarbanes-Oxley adds such a big burden to accounting and finance processes.”

“Do you think you’ll be able to grasp these new processes?” asked Blanchard.

“Shouldn’t be a problem,” Storms said confidently.

“We need someone with experience who can hit the ground running and run a tight ship when Lee eventually steps down as Budget Director,” said Blanchard. “You know the company has to plan for the future.”

“I’m not interested in replacing Lee,” Storms admitted. “But I’d be more than happy to mentor and train whoever succeeds him.”

“How long do you intend on working if you’re hired?” asked Blanchard.

Storms paused. “I’m not sure. I still have plenty of good years left in me.”

When Blanchard hired a 39-year-old applicant instead, Storms sued for age discrimination.

SCORECARD ON BLANCHARD

• Storms pointed out that Blanchard asked him how long he intended to work. An appeals court ruled that expected years of work may be correlated to age, but it does not implicate a prohibited age stereotype and may legitimately be considered in a hiring decision.
  
  
• Storms also used as evidence the fact that Blanchard had told him that “things have changed a lot” and that the company has to “plan for the future.” The court held that Blanchard was merely expressing legitimate business concerns.
  
  
• Although asking Storms whether he would “be able to grasp these new processes” was not considered by the court to be direct evidence of discrimination, it does bring to mind the age stereotype that “you can’t teach old dogs new tricks.” So it is easy to see how an older worker might perceive the question to be discriminatory. Blanchard would have been better off asking a more knowledge- or behavior-based question — and asking it of all applicants regardless of their age.
  
  
• Blanchard informed Storms of his expectation that the Accounting Manager would one day succeed the Budget Director, which helped legitimately weed out the applicant who was not interested in beginning a challenging career and advancing in the company, but rather in earning short-term money necessitated by his losses in the stock market. This “expectation” information should be relayed to all applicants, as it can also make the job more appealing to those who are looking for a position with growth potential.

More information about this publication/Order a subscription