Rejecting applicants based on choice of attire

[axlryder]

Okay, so say a woman wears a slightly low cut top to gain points in an interview. Is that her fault for trying, or the employer's fault for being sleazy enough to notice, even if they then react with prudish disapproval?

Also, a man showing his butt crack isn't comparable to a woman showing cleavage. For one, women also have buttcracks. The equivalent of a man showing his butt crack would be a woman showing her butt crack, which she wasn't. That would indeed be crude. A more apt comparison would be a fit guy who wears a slightly too tight shirt to accentuate his muscles. Would you even notice if that were the case? Would you assume he was a slut? Ahem, I mean, unprofessional?

One is not being sleazy for taking into account all aspects of the person he/she is interviewing, and it's ridiculous to think that we should completely discount one person's attempt to be manipulative with their body, and another person's disdain for that attempt because they're "sleazy" enough to have two eyeballs and interpret the person they're interviewing's dress sense. That said, I'm not even accusing her of trying to gain points, or being "slutty", but that doesn't mean I don't think there are potentially better choices of attire to consider when applying for a management position. The cleavage was prominent enough that it clearly was an intentional decision. Personal preference or not, every other person I interviewed seemed to find less revealing clothes just fine.

Also, I already established it wasn't comparable right in the OP. What's more, if the guy was just wearing a shirt without a jacket and it was too tight, yes, I would notice. This is a job interview, not a chance for you to show off your muscles. Clearly you're just biased and have a chip on your shoulder. I consider your attitude right now to be far more loaded with preconceptions than anything I've said. Advice like this is not helpful in any fashion. She didn't get the job, btw. Gave it to someone else who called back to check in about it.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

No you dhouldn't. I'm very much against rejecting someone based on apperances, looks and prejudice. You are basically discriminating her for using a blause you found inappropiate. I hate this kind of thing. Where her answers good? How is her CV? You now, the things that matter to the interview and to the job she will perform. Unless it is a job where wearing somehting is completely wrong, this should be a factor best ignored. The only point of an interview is to choose the best applicant. Do that. Who was the best in terms of preparation and other factors? Fuck clothes and prejudices asosciated with them.

I completely disagree. How a person dresses says alot about their character. If a person comes to an interview dressed like a slouch, unkempt, or wearing their pants halfway down their butt like what seems to be so popular these days, I would dismiss them IMMEDIATELY. Professionalism, or at least the desire to try and be professional should still mean something these days. Wearing provacative clothing to an interview is no different. It is most certainly NOT discrimination. Its a lack of intelligence on the part of the person applying for the job.

 

[axlryder]

snip

Ask yourself one question OP.
"Would I get in trouble if I was to refuse this candidate the job and inform them of the reason why."

The answer is yes, you probably would get in trouble if you informed this candidate that in spite of looking entirely professional they have been refused the job because you (the interviewer) personally didn't like her (admittedly professional looking) fashion sense.

Expecting people to dress professionally is one (reasonable) thing. Expecting people to cover up to the point of puritan discomfort is another (unreasonable) thing.

Actually I wouldn't. I don't owe her a job and I'm not discriminating based on a factor that is outside her control. It all comes down to presentation and perception, which is usually a deciding factor in hiring (all other things being equal). Besides, she looked professional aside from the cleavage, silly. That's the part that I questioned from the beginning. It was too prominent to not be an intentional decision, and if it was an intentional decision then I can say I'd prefer the other likely intentional decisions of the candidates who did not choose to have a low tops or tight shirts or whatever else.

 

[manic_depressive13]

One is not being sleazy for taking into account all aspects of the person he/she is interviewing, and it's ridiculous to think that we should completely discount one person's attempt to be manipulative with their body, and another person's disdain for that attempt because they're "sleazy" enough to have two eyeballs and interpret the person they're interviewing's dress sense. That said, I'm not even accusing her of trying to gain points, or being "slutty", but that doesn't mean I don't think there are potentially better choices of attire to consider when applying for a management position. The cleavage was prominent enough that it clearly was an intentional decision. Personal preference or not, every other person I interviewed seemed to find less revealing clothes just fine.

Also, I already established it wasn't comparable right in the OP. What's more, if the guy was just wearing a shirt without a jacket and it was too tight, yes, I would notice. This is a job interview, not a chance for you to show off your muscles. Clearly you're just biased and have a chip on your shoulder. I consider your attitude right now to be far more loaded with preconceptions than anything I've said. Advice like this is not helpful in any fashion. She didn't get the job, btw. Gave it to someone else who called back to check in about it.

Hahaha okay. So if they're not comparable why use it as an analogy? Anyway, these just strike me as really weird thing to register and get in a fuss about. Who cares if someone is showing cleavage? Who notices if someone's shirt is tight?

But hey, if you want to chalk it up to professionalism that you obsess over minutiae details in people's dress, good for you.

 

[Flutterguy]

Aesthetics are a pathetic thing to judge people on, but hey if you are getting multiple candidates who seem equally qualified then decide however you want. If wearing a low-cut top to an interview for fucking retail management is a big enough deal for you to not hire her then don't.

That being said I have a friend who had a horrendous cocaine habit, but who's parents would make sure he had a silk shirt and ironed pants for his interviews. The fact he didnt care if he got hired made him look calm and professional, and his parents basically giving him a makeover before going in, well he never was turned down once he got an interview. Sure he would get fired shortly after for smoking pot during lunchbreaks or just not doing his job, but damn was he ever presentable.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Aesthetics are a pathetic thing to judge people on, but hey if you are getting multiple candidates who seem equally qualified then decide however you want. If wearing a low-cut top to an interview for fucking retail management is a big enough deal for you to not hire her then don't.

That being said I have a friend who had a horrendous cocaine habit, but who's parents would make sure he had a silk shirt and ironed pants for his interviews. The fact he didnt care if he got hired made him look calm and professional, and his parents basically giving him a makeover before going in, well he never was turned down once he got an interview. Sure he would get fired shortly after for smoking pot during lunchbreaks or just not doing his job, but damn was he ever presentable.

Uh, no they're not. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, aesthetics matter a great deal in pretty much any aspect of business and professional interaction.

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you: let's say you're supposed to be getting major heart surgery, and your Surgeon walks in the night before you're scheduled to go under the knife, and he's wearing basketball shorts, a wife-beater, a sideways baseball cap, a gold chain, and has sleeve tattoos. Is your initial reaction gonna be "man, this guy must be an awesome surgeon!"? If you're like the vast majority of the population, probably not. Who knows? He might be the greatest heart surgeon in history, but (justified or not) that's not what people are going to think when they look at him and the way he presents himself.

Now, granted, that was an extreme example, but aesthetics matter a great deal. You show up looking bad to a job interview, people are going to assume you don't really care. It might not be 100% correct, but, as they say "you don't get a second chance to make a first impression", and that's what job interviews essentially are: first impressions.

As for your friend, how in the world does he continuously get hired when he's been fired from all his previous jobs? That's an enormous red flag for any interviewer who has two brain cells to rub together.

 

[axlryder]

One is not being sleazy for taking into account all aspects of the person he/she is interviewing, and it's ridiculous to think that we should completely discount one person's attempt to be manipulative with their body, and another person's disdain for that attempt because they're "sleazy" enough to have two eyeballs and interpret the person they're interviewing's dress sense. That said, I'm not even accusing her of trying to gain points, or being "slutty", but that doesn't mean I don't think there are potentially better choices of attire to consider when applying for a management position. The cleavage was prominent enough that it clearly was an intentional decision. Personal preference or not, every other person I interviewed seemed to find less revealing clothes just fine.

Also, I already established it wasn't comparable right in the OP. What's more, if the guy was just wearing a shirt without a jacket and it was too tight, yes, I would notice. This is a job interview, not a chance for you to show off your muscles. Clearly you're just biased and have a chip on your shoulder. I consider your attitude right now to be far more loaded with preconceptions than anything I've said. Advice like this is not helpful in any fashion. She didn't get the job, btw. Gave it to someone else who called back to check in about it.

Hahaha okay. So if they're not comparable why use it as an analogy? Anyway, these just strike me as really weird thing to register and get in a fuss about. Who cares if someone is showing cleavage? Who notices if someone's shirt is tight?

But hey, if you want to chalk it up to professionalism that you obsess over minutiae details in people's dress, good for you.

I was simply showing the course of my thought process as it came in the OP. Also, if you had to judge someone's character and personality in the span of 15 minutes or so to determine whether or not you were going to be working with them for a potentially very long time, then you too might get caught up on small details.

 

[axlryder]

So I was interviewing a few applicants at my workplace today, and I noticed that one of the women I was interviewing was wearing a low-cut shirt that showed off quite a bit of cleavage. This honestly left a pretty negative impression on me. Note that she did look fairly professional; it was just the low-cut top that stood out as being in poor taste to me. It wasn't too low, but low enough to be attention grabbing.

At first I felt like I was judging her on unimportant factors, or perhaps making assumptions about her personality based on what she was wearing. Then I thought that I just didn't see a reason for her to choose that kind of attire to wear for an interview. I thought, "I don't care who you are, wearing clothes that are intentionally revealing to an interview just doesn't come off as professional. If a guy was wearing a shirt/pants that showed off part of his buttcrack, then it would definitely factor into my decision to hire him." That said, low cut shirts are just more socially acceptable. She may just be following a natural pattern that has formed in society to the point where it would be unfair to judge her based on her conforming to a common template.

I dunno, I'm kind of torn on it. She interviewed well, but about as good as a few other candidates. What do you guys think?

For those curious, the position is low level retail management.

I know I haven't gotten a lot of jobs and literally got feedback from employers that I did not follow their dress code as in I'm in a dress shirt and tie while my interviewers were in jeans. To which even before the interview the front desk before the interview told me to dress business formal.

So yeah it is an actual reason you can decide if you don't want to hire them based on their attire. One of the many reasons why getting a job in this economy sucks. You can pass an interview with flying colors in terms of criteria but hey if you don't like their look or don't think their look will match the company atmosphere then you have every right to say no.

If her attire matches your company structure and business dress code then it shouldn't be a factor and you are basically putting your own morality in front of actually asking the important questions. Which are "Can she do the job?" and "Will her personality match that of our other co-workers?". If her attire did NOT match your company structure and dress code then you have every right to say no.

EDIT: Also I do have to state that finding proper clothes that fit actually can be difficult. Especially for a lot of people looking for a job for a long time due to the economy. It is very difficult to always have clothes that will fit well enough that you can afford. Especially when they are moving from a more casual work environment to a formal work environment.

EDIT 2: I also have to say OP. It is REALLY terrible of you to actually ask the masses here on this forum for advice on this subject especially if you have already made a decision. Cause honestly from your other posts it seems like you are seeking that self-confirmation bias because you didn't like the way they dressed.

I made the decision AFTER I made the OP. I actually made my decision based on a factor unrelated to her dress. I still have my personal preference, but I can appreciate what those on the other side of the fence are saying. I just don't like people aggressively antagonizing me because they think I'm being "prudish" or something similar.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Its a professional environment. I would choose not to hire somebody over something like that, even more so if there are people who are just as qualified but professionally dressed. Face to face job interviews are the biggest deciding factors for most employers and if you leave the wrong impression for any reason it will very likely cost you that job. There is always someone with more experience or qualifications so always dress 100% professionally and don't wear clothes that make people think you are trying to distract them from what kind of person you are.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Okay, so say a woman wears a slightly low cut top to gain points in an interview. Is that her fault for trying, or the employer's fault for being sleazy enough to notice, even if they then react with prudish disapproval?

Also, a man showing his butt crack isn't comparable to a woman showing cleavage. For one, women also have buttcracks. The equivalent of a man showing his butt crack would be a woman showing her butt crack, which she wasn't. That would indeed be crude. A more apt comparison would be a fit guy who wears a slightly too tight shirt to accentuate his muscles. Would you even notice if that were the case? Would you assume he was a slut? Ahem, I mean, unprofessional?

I find it hard to call somebody sleazy for noticing something other people are TRYING to get you to notice. Most people would notice a guy with big muscles wearing a tight t-shirt and it would be safe to call that just another way of getting extra attention. You are still trying to direct the attention towards your physical appearance which tells me you either lack the confidence or just flat out lack the skills for the job. Then there is the even worse possibly of you actually being promiscuous at which point I certainly won't hire you as you would be a disruptive force in the workplace. So no difference to me.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I find it hard to call somebody sleazy for noticing something other people are TRYING to get you to notice. Most people would notice a guy with big muscles wearing a tight t-shirt and it would be safe to call that just another way of getting extra attention. You are still trying to direct the attention towards your physical appearance which tells me you either lack the confidence or just flat out lack the skills for the job. Then there is the even worse possibly of you actually being promiscuous at which point I certainly won't hire you as you would be a disruptive force in the workplace. So no difference to me.

Maybe they're proud of their bodies? Maybe dressing in a way that makes them feel attractive gives them confidence? Maybe they chose a shirt they liked for the style/material, and it just happened to be slightly tight/ low cut? Maybe their body shape recently changed (gym, weight gain) and they didn't buy new clothes because their current ones still fit fine? They were encouraged to dress a certain way by a friend/parent/the media?

Just because someone is wearing clothing that vaguely accentuates their body doesn't mean that they're trying to distract you. You don't know their motivations, and the motivations you choose to give them says more about you than it does of them. Why would you project all these presumptuous and unflattering notions about someone's skills and libido based on a difference of a few inches of fabric?

 

[Movitz]

Go with your guts. If something feels off about a person, it problably is.

 

[Flutterguy]

snip

Eh you're right. It is a first impression thing. I've just considered the whole deal a contrived social phenomenon since childhood. Dressing up seems more a compensation in social interaction to me, you could blame my sunny disposition i guess. In a quick business world it makes sense to use a deceptive front, I don't disagree. I feel there is a large degree of dishonesty in it the whole thing though.

As for my friend getting jobs with poor working history? Don't put those ones on a resume. Unless the jobs take a decent amount of training or involve handling money there is a good chance they won't background check you. I was fired from Metro, and was hired by another Loblaws grocery store a year later in another town, its a reflection of the management I guess. Maybe it's uncommon, maybe I lucked out once and he's been blessed.

 

[Eamar]

Then there is the even worse possibly of you actually being promiscuous at which point I certainly won't hire you as you would be a disruptive force in the workplace.

a) You can't tell how promiscuous someone is just from how they dress. The possibility of "actually being promiscuous" exists for every single person you interview, and you have no way of telling.

b) So what if someone's promiscuous? That has nothing to do with their ability to do the job, and it in no way means that they'd be unprofessional, want to bang all their colleagues or be "disruptive".

Most people's sex lives have nothing to do with their work lives.

 

[Robert Marrs]

I find it hard to call somebody sleazy for noticing something other people are TRYING to get you to notice. Most people would notice a guy with big muscles wearing a tight t-shirt and it would be safe to call that just another way of getting extra attention. You are still trying to direct the attention towards your physical appearance which tells me you either lack the confidence or just flat out lack the skills for the job. Then there is the even worse possibly of you actually being promiscuous at which point I certainly won't hire you as you would be a disruptive force in the workplace. So no difference to me.

Maybe they're proud of their bodies? Maybe dressing in a way that makes them feel attractive gives them confidence? Maybe they chose a shirt they liked for the style/material, and it just happened to be slightly tight/ low cut? Maybe their body shape recently changed (gym, weight gain) and they didn't buy new clothes because their current ones still fit fine? They were encouraged to dress a certain way by a friend/parent/the media?

Just because someone is wearing clothing that vaguely accentuates their body doesn't mean that they're trying to distract you. You don't know their motivations, and the motivations you choose to give them says more about you than it does of them. Why would you project all these presumptuous and unflattering notions about someone's skills and libido based on a difference of a few inches of fabric?

Your response tells me you don't understand the responsibility that comes with hiring people. You don't have time for maybe this or maybe that when you are hiring someone who will be around all your other employees and your money. When you hire somebody you just put your own rear on the line because anything they do wrong ultimately comes back to you. If you hire somebody who is disruptive or steals its not really YOUR fault but you still hired them. You have to be pessimistic about the whole thing not optimistic.

Maybe this person just wears tight clothes because she has nothing else to wear or maybe she is just a flat out whore. I have to assume the worst because assuming the worst costs the business nothing. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt can cost you time, money, employees and cause the people above you to lose faith in your judgement. If they leave you with doubt they are not worth hiring at all. Double that if you are actually managing them and not just hiring them. Now anything negative that happens as a result of hiring someone is 100% on you. When you are responsible for everyone that is working for you, you don't take chances. You have to think about how they will impact your business and explore every single negative possibility. At least that way when you get a crappy employee (and its pretty much guaranteed to happen) nobody can look at you and say "well you should have known better than to hire x person because of x reason".


So yes. When hiring people you need to assume the worst, you need to stereotype and you need to generalize. Nobody is going to care that you were trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt when you hired them if they turn out to be a disruptive or poor employee. Now when it comes to my personal life I could care less how people dress and I don't make assumptions about every person I see. In my personal life if someone turns out to be a shitty person I can just not talk to them anymore. I never vouched for them and their actions are not my responsibility. I sure as hell don't dress or act the same at home as I do at work. If I have a certain standard for work when it comes to dress and attitude and I can meet that standard you better do the same or do it better if you want to work for me.

 

[manic_depressive13]

So yes. When hiring people you need to assume the worst, you need to stereotype and you need to generalize. Nobody is going to care that you were trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt when you hired them if they turn out to be a disruptive or poor employee.

No, you don't. There is no reason to believe people who wear slightly revealing clothing are less competent or more sexually active than their modestly dressed counterparts. There are no studies that support this notion. There is no reason to subscribe to such beliefs. When you dismiss people on this basis, you're not removing someone statistically more likely to be a bad employee. You're just indulging your own biased views and making yourself believe you're a great judge of character when in reality you're making poor decisions based on arbitrary factors.

Also, this sounds really close to the argument someone gave when I asked him about his racist hiring practices. Not accusing you of anything, but if you think stereotyping your applicants is a good and necessary thing to do, it seems likely this would apply to areas other than dress.

 

[Robert Marrs]

So yes. When hiring people you need to assume the worst, you need to stereotype and you need to generalize. Nobody is going to care that you were trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt when you hired them if they turn out to be a disruptive or poor employee.

No, you don't. There is no reason to believe people who wear slightly revealing clothing are less competent or more sexually active than their modestly dressed counterparts. There are no studies that support this notion. There is no reason to subscribe to such beliefs. When you dismiss people on this basis, you're not removing someone statistically more likely to be a bad employee. You're just indulging your own biased views and making yourself believe you're a great judge of character when in reality you're making poor decisions based on arbitrary factors.

Also, this sounds really close to the argument someone gave when I asked him about his racist hiring practices. Not accusing you of anything, but if you think stereotyping your applicants is a good and necessary thing to do, it seems likely this would apply to areas other than dress.

You are just proving my point. You obviously don't understand the responsibility it takes. I wish I had the liberty to be politically correct when in the professional field but the fact is that does not work. Honestly it seems like you are more focused on the attire of an applicant as opposed to the general attitude that people should have towards a professional environment. This is not you speaking from a working mans standpoint, this is you speaking from a political standpoint. You simply cannot grasp the fact that its not about the tight clothes.

Its about the lack of respect for the environment you are working in. It could be dirty fingernails, unkempt hair, tight clothes, short skirts or just a bad attitude. At the end its all the same. You are too busy focusing on my comments about tight clothes and most importantly women in those tight clothes. You should be focused on the difference between how you have the FREEDOM to act in your personal life and how SHOULD act in the work place.

EDIT: Also on the topic of racism I would not care if the person was of any color because at the end of the day its not about race or gender. I know you want it to be but its really not. Its about how people act in a professional environment and I know I already said this but here it goes again. It is about respect for a professional workplace regardless of what you do in your personal life.

 

[dyre]

You really would be better off asking this on a Human Resources forum and not a gaming forum...how many of your responders do you think have had experience interviewing in a professional setting? Honestly I've been through a bunch of interviews in corporate settings and I'm still not really sure what the interviewers want other than "make a good impression," "know the job/company," and "try to sound smart."

But in my uninformed opinion, if it makes you uncomfortable, take it into account. 10 to 1 odds that it really doesn't reflect on the woman's ability or professionalism, but it seems to me that HR types are always assuming the worst and looking for reasons to reject applicants. I mean, if the applicant is late for the interview, it ABSOLUTELY MUST mean that s/he's unprofessional and can't meet deadlines, right? So, if the applicant is dressing in a slightly unprofessional way, then assume it MUST be that she's a slut and will sue you for sexual harassment down the line, since as far as I can tell it's your job to think that way.