A new survey says than 9 out of 10 supervisors have hired based on attractiveness. Could they all have gotten sued?
The study was conducted by Peninsula, a UK-based law firm. The results: 88% of the hiring managers surveyed said that, at least once, they’d given an open job to the best-looking candidate (presumably instead of the best-qualified candidate, though that isn’t how the question was worded). Also, 92% of the respondents said looks can influence their decisions.
First of all, the results probably aren’t as drastic as they sound at first. “Best-looking” can mean a lot of things – and in most cases, it has more to do with how candidates present themselves, rather than their natural attractiveness, or lack thereof. For example, slovenly-looking interviewees aren’t often given much of a chance, and normally for good reason.
Against the law?
That said, is there anything illegal about letting looks overshadow work-related qualifications? Not unless gender, race or disability has anything to do with it.
For example, a company could get in trouble for hiring an attractive woman instead of a better-qualified but less visually-appealing man. Same goes for comparing applicants of different races. And finally, refusing to hire someone because of a visually noticeable disability is, of course, a bad idea.
For more on the legality of paying attention to candidates’ looks, go here.
