Ytukyg

One person in a couple loses a job, another becomes more active in seeking a job. I don't see anything suspicious about that. For all we know he could be pursuing opportunities with several companies.

Also, the idea in an earlier edit that he may be getting in contact with the company to vent out his anger or take revenge is a very long way from being established. We don't know his motives - it might just be to find work.

The approach you're taking seems reasonable - if he appears to fit the job description, I would arrange an interview. It would be fair to ask how he would handle his wife's history with the company, but asking directly if he bears a grudge would be unlikely to be useful - anyone with vindictive motives will not be inclined to answer honestly.

It's something to bear in mind during recruitment, but a company whose recruitment process didn't weed out those who intended to do the company harm would have a bigger problem than with one specific couple.

Cancel the interview and don't have anything more to do with this candidate, nothing good can come from it!

(Edit: I agree with @reirab you should immediately contact a lawyer and ensure the way you terminate this process complies with local legal requirements.)

Given the circumstances there is no way this relationship can succeed - even if the applicant is genuine there will be immense suspicion over every mistake, especially if it's a big one. If they're not genuine then they can do incredible harm to your company.

There is no question or interview technique that will properly allow you to discern their motives for continuing with the process.

Step 1: Talk to a Lawyer

I'm a bit surprised that I haven't already seen this in another answer, but the very first thing I would recommend doing in this situation is have whoever is in charge of this situation talk to an employment lawyer in your jurisdiction immediately in order to understand what sorts of employment laws might affect your options in this case. I would do this before proceeding with anything else, including the interview. Certain interview questions might be banned. Taking certain factors into account when making an employment decision might be banned. Only a lawyer in your jurisdiction can competently answer this for you.

I'm not one who is normally quick to encourage lawyering up, but this is a situation where I would absolutely want to do that before anything else if I were in your company's shoes.

Personally, I would be extremely hesitant to hire someone in this situation. It just really does not seem like it would end well for the company and also likely wouldn't be good for the couple. But before I made this decision, I would absolutely want to talk to a local employment lawyer about it and make sure I know exactly what the legal restrictions on my options for handling the case were.

Obviously, some of this depends on the reason for termination.

As with any interview, there's no obligation on either side to continue with the job offer, so use the interview to gauge whether it's a real candidate or a bunny-boiler. People who have an axe to grind will usually have the wheel turning.

Even then, you're covered by the probation period should he interview well and then turn nasty.

There are a couple of basic ethical precepts that apply here:

• When we make hiring decisions, they're based on the candidate's qualifications, not on irrelevant personal characteristics such as who they're related to.




• People shouldn't suffer the consequences of other people's actions.

Examples of this kind of thing are that people frown on nepotism, and the US constitution prohibits corruption of blood as a punishment for treason.

Based on these principles, I think the default should clearly be to interview the guy and seriously consider his application just as you would anyone else's. If you're thinking of deviating from this default, then (a) make sure you have an articulable reason that addresses the ethical issues (not just some utilitarian justification) and (b) talk to a lawyer. People can sue you if you discriminate against them in hiring, and only a lawyer can tell you whether this discrimination is illegal under your locality's laws. (E.g., I believe in California this type of discrimination would not be illegal, because the guy isn't a member of a protected class, but I could be wrong, so don't trust my opinion, ask a lawyer.)

Should we be prepared for the possibility that he is persisting about the interview now to vent his anger or "take revenge" in some twisted way?

To me, this does not constitute an articulable reason that addresses the ethical issues. It's not reasonable to hypothesize that this guy is going to leave his current job so that he can come to work for you on some kind of kamikaze mission of revenge. All of this would clearly not be in his own best interests, and it's not reasonable to attribute irrational, self-destructive motivations to someone who is simply applying for a job. People generally apply for a job because they want the job.

If in America, speak to the DOL and/or your legal counsel. If you deny interviewing a qualified candidate due to discrimination based on their affiliation with another previous employee, that may be construed as a personal act of discrimination by the company, and they could potentially file suite.

Since you are actually considering not doing so for that exact reason, you had better address this immediately to make sure you aren't in the wrong, if this candidate was practically a shoe-in for the position, which should to be the case, then, they may actually have a reason to pursue your organization, even if there is no valid case, there may be enough to bring to court, in order to try to force a settlement.

Edit:

My wife (a social worker) explained that you MUST NOT speak to him about his wife in any way, as this violates employee confidentiality, and that HR should be keenly aware of this and present on the call to protect you from speaking about that situation as its required to be completely confidential to the employee.

Furthermore she indicated that if the interviewee brings it up you need to say she worked there but you aren't't able to discuss the details about former employees and hand it over to HR if pressed, as its their job to protect you from being exposed.

Also she said it if there was any pattern of intentional sabotage after the employee were brought on board that would be grounds for firing any employee and possible legal action against them.

Finally she agreed that if this reason is not a valid one to use to evaluate whether they are fit for the position.

-now, I'm not a lawyer, but you seem to have already placed tourselves in a disadvantaged position by considering his relationship to a previous employee and making it a consideration, if a lawsuit alleged that they had reason to believe this was a factor in their not getting an interview they could file suite and request any correspondence employees made about this, in which case you have the most to lose as the company would likely disavow you being an agent of theirs in making these inquiries and providing the advice to colleagues.

So, again, speak with your HR, let them know your concerns and they you reached out to that hiring manager, and as not all HR are trained social workers and up to date on all DOL guidlines, you should get your company social worker and Lawyer to assist them in making sure you properly handle tbs legal obligations to all parties.

Your most important thing to do is distance yourself from affecting the process negatively or you could be personally liable.

most importantly, as said by others, consult a PERSONAL Lawyer specializing in labor before doing anything, you may want to discuss doing something along the following lines with them:

It may be all you can do, is damage control now. Ie. shut your mouth to the manager, speak to HR hiring person and social worker and ask to bring in the staff legal counsel, and hope that they weren't planning to not interview the person based on his association with the former employee.

You can take notes, and if they indicated they were planning such a thing, you could make sure to note that down, then let them know they may be opening themselves to legal trouble if they do so, and let them sort it out.

This way, if they do try to make a decision based on that relationship, and try to blame it on you, you can show that you spoke with them on such and such date and they were already looking to make that desision, and you informed them that was not the proper course and advised them to look into it if they try to make it your personal legal matter. The company would be trying to get out of suite by pushing liability to you if they can, but the plaintifs would rather get the deep pockets of the company than your personal bank account.

Likewise if the company tries to fire you as part of that you may havs grounds for wrongful termination at that point.

And most importantly, as said by others, consult a PERSONAL Lawyer specializing in labor before doing anything!

Edit:

I want to be clear I am saying you should only be concerned about a civil law suite because you have indicated that you interjected into the process, offering viewpoints, (even-though pro-interview viewpoints), and indicated that there isn't a clear guidance coming from the HR, in fact HR should not have informed the hiring manager of the relationship the candidate had with the previous employee, but should have stated that they needed to be present for all interviews with that candidate only, as by informing the hiring manager they are breaking the employee confidentiality. So actually it sounds like they may have opened grounds for a civil suit against them if I understand you correctly, and in either case, your involvement opes you up to grounds for a civil lawsuit.

I'm not even saying it would be a GOOD lawsuit, but the standards for Civil cases are much relaxed from criminal cases, and you should do what you can to make sure that if such a suite were to come forward you couldn;t be fired with cause or dragged into or perhaps even scapegoated onto.

As regardless of the motivations of the candidate, if they are string along and get the impression that they are being discriminated against due to their wife they may sue, and for a civil case you can get a lot further based on what you believe happened than with a criminal case.

and so, again, I must say, contact a personal lawyer and discuss this matter with them and ask about if you should bring them in to speak to your HR's hiring Person (and HR Social Worker if not the same person), or maybe avoid that conversation entirely.

Inviting the spouse of a fired employee invites drama. Don't do it because it:

• Fouls the mood at work functions where families or spouses are invited


• Undercuts the authority of the manager who terminated her


• Queues up no end of liability for the company when a candidate with no such baggage need be considered from an external hire.

Have the candidate submit, in writing, a conflict of interest reporting/disclosure form.¹

If they don't accurately disclose their family member's recent employment status, you have an iron-clad case for rejecting them (falsification of an employment application).

If they do, you are set up to ask the kind of uncomfortable questions about how to ensure that the potential conflict doesn't become a conflict-in-fact.

¹ Actually you should add this to your hiring process so it applies to all candidates. You wouldn't necessarily find out when one of your clients or suppliers has an ex-employee that holds a grudge, but their family members could be equally as dangerous as if the ex-employee formed worked directly for you. So you want to make a practice of identifying external financial entanglements of applicants.