A U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently gave its official stamp of approval on a critical but nebulous element of the hiring process: an interviewer’s subjective impression of a candidate.

The 11”’ Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Chapman v. Al Transport that an employer can successfully defend employment decisions based on subjective criteria if the employer “articulates a clear and reasonably specific factual basis” for its reasoning.
The court gave the following example: If an interviewer said he did not hire an applicant because he simply did not like the applicant’s appearance, that would be insufficient reason. But, if the interviewer stated he did not like the applicant’s appearance and also gave the particular reason (i.e., uncombed hair and dandruff, dirty fingernails, wore shorts to the interview), that would be specific enough to satisfy the court’s test.

In the Chapman case, an age discrimination suit, the managers who interviewed the plaintiff elaborated on the interview deficiencies, saying the plaintiff was “not concise with his answers” and did not take “an aggressive approach” in asking questions about the job.

The court determined that these items were specific enough to meet the court’s test.