Job Candidate reveals Cancer

vgmill

If an applicant reveals, without being questioned, a diagnosis of cancer during the application process, and no job offer has been extended, what are the risks for not offering the candidate a job.

NeedCoffee

Well, if there are more qualified candidates, that's a no-brainer - you hired the most qualified person (as you should) and it happened to not be that candidate. If your cancer candidate is the most qualified person, yet you hire someone who was less qualified FOR THE REASON that they don't have cancer, you're setting yourself up.

When you don't hire someone because of a discriminatory reason, you may be committing pre-employment discrimination. Bottom line, just make sure you hire the BEST candidate for the job, and you should be safe!

SMace

The law that most likely would come into play is ADA. ERISA may also. But if you do not hire them because of the cancer they can claim you regarded their health condition as a disability. They would then qualify as being covered under ADA and could sue you for violating their rights. This is only if they are the most qualified candidate.

NaeNae55

Suffice to say unless the job candidate reveals something personal that would make them unqualified to do the job (ie: candidate has history of theft and is applying for a teller position), you must completely ignore their personal comments. You must instead concentrate on their qualifications. If this candidate is the most qualified you must select them for the position. You can't even make suppositions about how it might affect the job. For instance, if your position is the front desk and it needs someone who is reliable, you cannot suppose this candidate will be gone alot due to their condition. Of course, if you hire them and then it turns out they ARE gone alot, you will then have to deal with it. But it would be the same if they had not revealed their condition.

I remember hiring an employee once who announced early in the interview that she was pregnant. We were a small office and that position had daily deadlines. She was the most qualified, so I hired her (even though I got some unpleasant feedback from upper management). I wish I could tell you she was such a good worker that I was able to thumb my nose at management, but that is not how it ultimately worked out. Still, I knew I was doing the right thing and complying with the law. I always wondered if her claim of being open and honest beforehand was just a set up to have an opportunity to sue. I guess we'll never know.

Good luck!

Nae

Susan in La

I agree with NaeNae. If this is the most qualified candidate, hire them. I have two employees right now working for me while undergoing treatment for cancer. Despite their required absences, they do their work and are both outstanding employees. If this person does not work out, you can let them go for documented work related reasons, but I wouldn't not hire because of a medical condition I shouldn't know about.

SMace

I agree with Nae about the pregnancy, but not the teller theft thing. If I'm hiring someone and they tell me they have a history of theft, I'm not hiring. You don't want to use information that is protected by law. You would be within your legal right not to hire that person and I would argue that you would do a disservice to your employer if you did.

Just my $.02- sorry Balloonman