Interviewing spouse of a fired employee












52














We are a small organisation (50+ people). Recently an employee was fired. Events leading to her termination escalated quickly and everything happened very fast (within 1-2 days). Obviously, she did not leave on a good note.



She was fired on basis of performance and she had some complaints with the team as well. (However, I am not exactly sure how things turned bad so fast). There were no indication (at least externally) that something was wrong. She was enjoying herself and was part of organising team in Christmas party few weeks back.



A few weeks before she was fired (in good times), she referred her spouse for a role in completely different team. Nothing happened on her spouse's application in the meantime. We did not hear from the spouse as well. After she was fired, her spouse began following up with us frequently asking for a chance to interview. The timing is very suspicious but his profile is actually very impressive. The hiring manager, unaware that he is the spouse of fired employee, was seriously considering his application.



Now when they decided to call him for interview, HR became involved and they immediately notified the hiring manager of the situation. We are not sure how to deal with this. Should we interview him at all? Should we mention firing of his spouse and, if so, at what point? 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?



My advice to the hiring manager is give the guy a chance but, before interviewing him in person, put him on a phone call (along with HR) and ask him directly if he has any grudges about his wife being fired and how would he handle this history if he was to work for our company now.



However, I would like to hear other opinions on this matter.



Edit: The candidate in question is already currently working at a decent company at a decent role. So from financial perspective, they may not be desperate for this job.










share|improve this question




















  • 2




    @Sascha company size and whether the same department or not is already mentioned in the question.
    – PagMax
    yesterday






  • 2




    @Homerothompson No I am not sure hence I am posting it here. He did show increased interest AFTER the firing.
    – PagMax
    yesterday






  • 2




    How does someone get fired within a day? Seriously I can't figure it out. Did start a boxing match with the boss's daughter in the middle of the day over paperwork!?
    – Steve
    yesterday






  • 3




    @Steve No, the firing happened in one day (Assuming the incident all the way to leaving the facility) - She worked there for at least 2 weeks, presumably longer
    – GrumpyCrouton
    yesterday






  • 2




    @GrumpyCrouton yeah, but even messing up hard enough to actually get through the firing process all in one day sounds nuts to me. Especially since things seem to have been going well with her up until that point.
    – Steve
    yesterday
















52














We are a small organisation (50+ people). Recently an employee was fired. Events leading to her termination escalated quickly and everything happened very fast (within 1-2 days). Obviously, she did not leave on a good note.



She was fired on basis of performance and she had some complaints with the team as well. (However, I am not exactly sure how things turned bad so fast). There were no indication (at least externally) that something was wrong. She was enjoying herself and was part of organising team in Christmas party few weeks back.



A few weeks before she was fired (in good times), she referred her spouse for a role in completely different team. Nothing happened on her spouse's application in the meantime. We did not hear from the spouse as well. After she was fired, her spouse began following up with us frequently asking for a chance to interview. The timing is very suspicious but his profile is actually very impressive. The hiring manager, unaware that he is the spouse of fired employee, was seriously considering his application.



Now when they decided to call him for interview, HR became involved and they immediately notified the hiring manager of the situation. We are not sure how to deal with this. Should we interview him at all? Should we mention firing of his spouse and, if so, at what point? 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?



My advice to the hiring manager is give the guy a chance but, before interviewing him in person, put him on a phone call (along with HR) and ask him directly if he has any grudges about his wife being fired and how would he handle this history if he was to work for our company now.



However, I would like to hear other opinions on this matter.



Edit: The candidate in question is already currently working at a decent company at a decent role. So from financial perspective, they may not be desperate for this job.










share|improve this question




















  • 2




    @Sascha company size and whether the same department or not is already mentioned in the question.
    – PagMax
    yesterday






  • 2




    @Homerothompson No I am not sure hence I am posting it here. He did show increased interest AFTER the firing.
    – PagMax
    yesterday






  • 2




    How does someone get fired within a day? Seriously I can't figure it out. Did start a boxing match with the boss's daughter in the middle of the day over paperwork!?
    – Steve
    yesterday






  • 3




    @Steve No, the firing happened in one day (Assuming the incident all the way to leaving the facility) - She worked there for at least 2 weeks, presumably longer
    – GrumpyCrouton
    yesterday






  • 2




    @GrumpyCrouton yeah, but even messing up hard enough to actually get through the firing process all in one day sounds nuts to me. Especially since things seem to have been going well with her up until that point.
    – Steve
    yesterday














52












52








52


3





We are a small organisation (50+ people). Recently an employee was fired. Events leading to her termination escalated quickly and everything happened very fast (within 1-2 days). Obviously, she did not leave on a good note.



She was fired on basis of performance and she had some complaints with the team as well. (However, I am not exactly sure how things turned bad so fast). There were no indication (at least externally) that something was wrong. She was enjoying herself and was part of organising team in Christmas party few weeks back.



A few weeks before she was fired (in good times), she referred her spouse for a role in completely different team. Nothing happened on her spouse's application in the meantime. We did not hear from the spouse as well. After she was fired, her spouse began following up with us frequently asking for a chance to interview. The timing is very suspicious but his profile is actually very impressive. The hiring manager, unaware that he is the spouse of fired employee, was seriously considering his application.



Now when they decided to call him for interview, HR became involved and they immediately notified the hiring manager of the situation. We are not sure how to deal with this. Should we interview him at all? Should we mention firing of his spouse and, if so, at what point? 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?



My advice to the hiring manager is give the guy a chance but, before interviewing him in person, put him on a phone call (along with HR) and ask him directly if he has any grudges about his wife being fired and how would he handle this history if he was to work for our company now.



However, I would like to hear other opinions on this matter.



Edit: The candidate in question is already currently working at a decent company at a decent role. So from financial perspective, they may not be desperate for this job.










share|improve this question















We are a small organisation (50+ people). Recently an employee was fired. Events leading to her termination escalated quickly and everything happened very fast (within 1-2 days). Obviously, she did not leave on a good note.



She was fired on basis of performance and she had some complaints with the team as well. (However, I am not exactly sure how things turned bad so fast). There were no indication (at least externally) that something was wrong. She was enjoying herself and was part of organising team in Christmas party few weeks back.



A few weeks before she was fired (in good times), she referred her spouse for a role in completely different team. Nothing happened on her spouse's application in the meantime. We did not hear from the spouse as well. After she was fired, her spouse began following up with us frequently asking for a chance to interview. The timing is very suspicious but his profile is actually very impressive. The hiring manager, unaware that he is the spouse of fired employee, was seriously considering his application.



Now when they decided to call him for interview, HR became involved and they immediately notified the hiring manager of the situation. We are not sure how to deal with this. Should we interview him at all? Should we mention firing of his spouse and, if so, at what point? 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?



My advice to the hiring manager is give the guy a chance but, before interviewing him in person, put him on a phone call (along with HR) and ask him directly if he has any grudges about his wife being fired and how would he handle this history if he was to work for our company now.



However, I would like to hear other opinions on this matter.



Edit: The candidate in question is already currently working at a decent company at a decent role. So from financial perspective, they may not be desperate for this job.







interviewing termination conflict-of-interest






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 20 hours ago

























asked yesterday









PagMax

8,73842344




8,73842344








  • 2




    @Sascha company size and whether the same department or not is already mentioned in the question.
    – PagMax
    yesterday






  • 2




    @Homerothompson No I am not sure hence I am posting it here. He did show increased interest AFTER the firing.
    – PagMax
    yesterday






  • 2




    How does someone get fired within a day? Seriously I can't figure it out. Did start a boxing match with the boss's daughter in the middle of the day over paperwork!?
    – Steve
    yesterday






  • 3




    @Steve No, the firing happened in one day (Assuming the incident all the way to leaving the facility) - She worked there for at least 2 weeks, presumably longer
    – GrumpyCrouton
    yesterday






  • 2




    @GrumpyCrouton yeah, but even messing up hard enough to actually get through the firing process all in one day sounds nuts to me. Especially since things seem to have been going well with her up until that point.
    – Steve
    yesterday














  • 2




    @Sascha company size and whether the same department or not is already mentioned in the question.
    – PagMax
    yesterday






  • 2




    @Homerothompson No I am not sure hence I am posting it here. He did show increased interest AFTER the firing.
    – PagMax
    yesterday






  • 2




    How does someone get fired within a day? Seriously I can't figure it out. Did start a boxing match with the boss's daughter in the middle of the day over paperwork!?
    – Steve
    yesterday






  • 3




    @Steve No, the firing happened in one day (Assuming the incident all the way to leaving the facility) - She worked there for at least 2 weeks, presumably longer
    – GrumpyCrouton
    yesterday






  • 2




    @GrumpyCrouton yeah, but even messing up hard enough to actually get through the firing process all in one day sounds nuts to me. Especially since things seem to have been going well with her up until that point.
    – Steve
    yesterday








2




2




@Sascha company size and whether the same department or not is already mentioned in the question.
– PagMax
yesterday




@Sascha company size and whether the same department or not is already mentioned in the question.
– PagMax
yesterday




2




2




@Homerothompson No I am not sure hence I am posting it here. He did show increased interest AFTER the firing.
– PagMax
yesterday




@Homerothompson No I am not sure hence I am posting it here. He did show increased interest AFTER the firing.
– PagMax
yesterday




2




2




How does someone get fired within a day? Seriously I can't figure it out. Did start a boxing match with the boss's daughter in the middle of the day over paperwork!?
– Steve
yesterday




How does someone get fired within a day? Seriously I can't figure it out. Did start a boxing match with the boss's daughter in the middle of the day over paperwork!?
– Steve
yesterday




3




3




@Steve No, the firing happened in one day (Assuming the incident all the way to leaving the facility) - She worked there for at least 2 weeks, presumably longer
– GrumpyCrouton
yesterday




@Steve No, the firing happened in one day (Assuming the incident all the way to leaving the facility) - She worked there for at least 2 weeks, presumably longer
– GrumpyCrouton
yesterday




2




2




@GrumpyCrouton yeah, but even messing up hard enough to actually get through the firing process all in one day sounds nuts to me. Especially since things seem to have been going well with her up until that point.
– Steve
yesterday




@GrumpyCrouton yeah, but even messing up hard enough to actually get through the firing process all in one day sounds nuts to me. Especially since things seem to have been going well with her up until that point.
– Steve
yesterday










8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes


















81














While I admit I'd be skeptical that employing this person would be tenable (for either of you really) it's not impossible. Married couples aren't one entity and the spouse may be a thorough professional and able to compartmentalize the situation. So I'd say it's worth interviewing them (assuming that you would if the spousal connection didn't exist).



I would say that it's worth addressing the point in the interview though:




I'm sure you're aware that [name of fired employee] is no longer with the company. Do you anticipate that causing any issues were you to be employed here?




And see what their response is.






share|improve this answer

















  • 51




    Of course that interview question could be rather awkward if the spouse hasn't communicated their termination :D
    – Peter M
    yesterday






  • 42




    @PeterM Possibly.. this is why I worded it as "no longer with the company" that way if the spouse has given an "alternative" narrative such as leaving mutually or by their own choice to save face at home then you aren't dropping them in it directly. If they haven't mentioned leaving at all..well that might get "interesting" but I don't think it would be reasonable to have to consider accommodating the possibility of such a situation.
    – motosubatsu
    yesterday






  • 18




    "married couples aren't one entity" +1. The candidate may not have picked his spouse for her managerial skills. From candidate's POV he may have wanted to avoid working in same organization with his spouse, and is happy to proceed now that that issue is no longer present.
    – Nathan Hughes
    yesterday






  • 1




    Also, since your departure with the initial employee, the financial situation might be a bit more dire in their family, and the increased interest could be making up for that shortcoming. Even if he's working already, having a sudden drop in income as a family may be painful and the offer he suspects he can get might be better than where he's currently at.
    – Anoplexian
    yesterday












  • "the spouse may be able to compartmentalize the situation". Sure, the sun may not rise tomorrow. What is the purpose of such absolutely theoretical abstractions?
    – Fattie
    15 hours ago



















28














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.






share|improve this answer























  • I wanted to mention that aspect too, even just looking at it from a financial point of view, they have lost a income stream, it makes sense that the job hunt would intensify
    – J.Doe
    yesterday






  • 1




    You are right and I did think about it too. I forgot to mention that the guy is already working. So not that he is currently jobless. I will edit my query and include this information.
    – PagMax
    yesterday










  • @PagMax Already working doesn't really preclude anything. At least in some sectors, just changing jobs can frequently net +20% to wages (not even necessarily taking a promotion, just moving to a different job with more experience); loss of income would be a motivator to rekindle some of those job hunts (especially ones that are already in-progress, and thus less effort than starting from scratch - he was evidently not fully happy before, and now has more incentive to actively search).
    – Delioth
    yesterday










  • @PagMax - nice edit to the question. I've tweaked the answer to (I hope) align with the latest.
    – ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere
    19 hours ago



















21














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.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Alan Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 11




    You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)
    – Stephen DiMarco
    yesterday








  • 8




    @StephenDiMarco The issue is not marital status. It is close and ongoing association with a former employee whose employment was terminated for what appears to be a serious breach of contract. Common sense says the likelihood that the two people won't communicate with each other regularly in future is zero and that communication has the obvious risk of bad consequences.
    – alephzero
    yesterday






  • 5




    In the UK what you're describing (refusing to interview this person because they're married to someone you consider 'undesirable') would be unlawful and could result in hefty fines; acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
    – Richard
    yesterday








  • 5




    @Richard - I believe you are mis-applying that law, it is not the fact of their marital status but the relationship with an employee who left in difficult circumstances.
    – Alan Dev
    yesterday






  • 6




    @JimClay - Without wanting to seem inflammatory, the law is in place specifically to protect people like this from views like these.
    – Richard
    yesterday





















17














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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 6




    "bunny-boiler"?
    – TankorSmash
    yesterday






  • 15




    @TankorSmash I believe that Snow is making a reference to Glenn Close's insane character in Fatal Attraction who famously broke into the house of the man that spurned her after an affair and boiled his daughter's pet rabbit
    – Kevin
    yesterday








  • 1




    urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bunny%20boiler covers it surprisingly well. Basically a stalker-ex with an axe to grind.
    – Criggie
    yesterday










  • Obviously, some of this depends on the reason for termination. Huh? This is not at all obvious to me. It's her husband who is applying, not her.
    – Ben Crowell
    11 hours ago



















9














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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 2




    Or another variation - get HR (not recruiters) looped in. They tend to be more familiar with the legalities and risk, and would pull in a lawyer as needed.
    – selbie
    19 hours ago










  • Yes, this is exactly correct.
    – Fattie
    15 hours ago










  • @selbie True, but HR at a small, 50-person company tends to be quite small. In the case of the similarly-sized company I work for, it's one person, who also happens to be the accountant.
    – reirab
    11 hours ago





















3














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.






share|improve this answer























  • If you fired the wife as your personal financial planner for fraud/embezzlement/whatever, would you do as you advise OP and consider hiring the husband as your financial planner with no bias whatsoever due to the relationship with your previous financial manager?
    – Jim Clay
    4 hours ago












  • And honestly, if you say “yes” I won’t believe you.
    – Jim Clay
    4 hours ago



















2














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






share|improve this answer

















  • 6




    While not wrong, this answer would be vastly improved with support.
    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 2




    @Harper That's like saying "I know 'you shouldn't hit your hand with a hammer' is a good idea, but you should back it up". To do so would be superfluous
    – Richard U
    yesterday






  • 11




    I'm claiming it is not.
    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 7




    @RichardU If someone asks, "Should I hit my hand with a hammer", then it would not be superfluous to provide support in your answer. Obviously it is not superfluous here either, since the person has asked the question.
    – Tashus
    yesterday








  • 3




    Copying @StephenDiMarco 's comment from another answer, as it is relevant here: "You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)"
    – Tashus
    yesterday



















-1














Go through with the interview and let that team decide if they want to hire him. If there are other applicants as qualified as he is then maybe hire one of them if they would be a better fit.



I don't know what country this is happening in, but in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all. Even if he does something illegal, the business will win in the end. There's no real reason to be apprehensive about this.



If you interview him, don't hire him, and if he can't prove that he wasn't hired due to discrimination there's really nothing he can do about it. There are no downsides to just letting the natural process happen here.






share|improve this answer



















  • 7




    "in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all." - I don't understand why you say this. I can think of ways a single person could harm a business, and a 50-employee business is not large. If the ways to harm the business are illegal, then what can happen is that the saboteur loses as well as the business.
    – David Thornley
    yesterday






  • 5




    A single person can often very easily seriously harm a company. It would be especially easy if they worked in IT. Think "sudo rm -rf /" while making sure that the backups are toast. Or simply setting a fire.
    – Jim Clay
    yesterday








  • 1




    As someone who is employed by a company of a similar size to the OP's in the US, I would very much have to agree with David. I can think of all kinds of things that I - or any of several other people - could personally do that would have quite major effects on said company. And, depending on how long the person wanting to do that had to plan and execute such task, it could likely be done in a way that would make it difficult or impossible to authoritatively trace back to the perpetrator. This is why fired employees are often immediately walked out the door (after taking their keys.)
    – reirab
    23 hours ago










  • (wan'twant)
    – Peter Mortensen
    22 hours ago












  • @PeterMortensen: Fixed.
    – Keith Thompson
    9 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "423"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: false,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125833%2finterviewing-spouse-of-a-fired-employee%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown




















StackExchange.ready(function () {
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function () {
var showEditor = function() {
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
};

var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True') {
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');

$(this).loadPopup({
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup) {
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');

pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
}
})
} else{
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true) {
showEditor();
}
}
});
});






8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes








8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









81














While I admit I'd be skeptical that employing this person would be tenable (for either of you really) it's not impossible. Married couples aren't one entity and the spouse may be a thorough professional and able to compartmentalize the situation. So I'd say it's worth interviewing them (assuming that you would if the spousal connection didn't exist).



I would say that it's worth addressing the point in the interview though:




I'm sure you're aware that [name of fired employee] is no longer with the company. Do you anticipate that causing any issues were you to be employed here?




And see what their response is.






share|improve this answer

















  • 51




    Of course that interview question could be rather awkward if the spouse hasn't communicated their termination :D
    – Peter M
    yesterday






  • 42




    @PeterM Possibly.. this is why I worded it as "no longer with the company" that way if the spouse has given an "alternative" narrative such as leaving mutually or by their own choice to save face at home then you aren't dropping them in it directly. If they haven't mentioned leaving at all..well that might get "interesting" but I don't think it would be reasonable to have to consider accommodating the possibility of such a situation.
    – motosubatsu
    yesterday






  • 18




    "married couples aren't one entity" +1. The candidate may not have picked his spouse for her managerial skills. From candidate's POV he may have wanted to avoid working in same organization with his spouse, and is happy to proceed now that that issue is no longer present.
    – Nathan Hughes
    yesterday






  • 1




    Also, since your departure with the initial employee, the financial situation might be a bit more dire in their family, and the increased interest could be making up for that shortcoming. Even if he's working already, having a sudden drop in income as a family may be painful and the offer he suspects he can get might be better than where he's currently at.
    – Anoplexian
    yesterday












  • "the spouse may be able to compartmentalize the situation". Sure, the sun may not rise tomorrow. What is the purpose of such absolutely theoretical abstractions?
    – Fattie
    15 hours ago
















81














While I admit I'd be skeptical that employing this person would be tenable (for either of you really) it's not impossible. Married couples aren't one entity and the spouse may be a thorough professional and able to compartmentalize the situation. So I'd say it's worth interviewing them (assuming that you would if the spousal connection didn't exist).



I would say that it's worth addressing the point in the interview though:




I'm sure you're aware that [name of fired employee] is no longer with the company. Do you anticipate that causing any issues were you to be employed here?




And see what their response is.






share|improve this answer

















  • 51




    Of course that interview question could be rather awkward if the spouse hasn't communicated their termination :D
    – Peter M
    yesterday






  • 42




    @PeterM Possibly.. this is why I worded it as "no longer with the company" that way if the spouse has given an "alternative" narrative such as leaving mutually or by their own choice to save face at home then you aren't dropping them in it directly. If they haven't mentioned leaving at all..well that might get "interesting" but I don't think it would be reasonable to have to consider accommodating the possibility of such a situation.
    – motosubatsu
    yesterday






  • 18




    "married couples aren't one entity" +1. The candidate may not have picked his spouse for her managerial skills. From candidate's POV he may have wanted to avoid working in same organization with his spouse, and is happy to proceed now that that issue is no longer present.
    – Nathan Hughes
    yesterday






  • 1




    Also, since your departure with the initial employee, the financial situation might be a bit more dire in their family, and the increased interest could be making up for that shortcoming. Even if he's working already, having a sudden drop in income as a family may be painful and the offer he suspects he can get might be better than where he's currently at.
    – Anoplexian
    yesterday












  • "the spouse may be able to compartmentalize the situation". Sure, the sun may not rise tomorrow. What is the purpose of such absolutely theoretical abstractions?
    – Fattie
    15 hours ago














81












81








81






While I admit I'd be skeptical that employing this person would be tenable (for either of you really) it's not impossible. Married couples aren't one entity and the spouse may be a thorough professional and able to compartmentalize the situation. So I'd say it's worth interviewing them (assuming that you would if the spousal connection didn't exist).



I would say that it's worth addressing the point in the interview though:




I'm sure you're aware that [name of fired employee] is no longer with the company. Do you anticipate that causing any issues were you to be employed here?




And see what their response is.






share|improve this answer












While I admit I'd be skeptical that employing this person would be tenable (for either of you really) it's not impossible. Married couples aren't one entity and the spouse may be a thorough professional and able to compartmentalize the situation. So I'd say it's worth interviewing them (assuming that you would if the spousal connection didn't exist).



I would say that it's worth addressing the point in the interview though:




I'm sure you're aware that [name of fired employee] is no longer with the company. Do you anticipate that causing any issues were you to be employed here?




And see what their response is.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









motosubatsu

43.3k22111174




43.3k22111174








  • 51




    Of course that interview question could be rather awkward if the spouse hasn't communicated their termination :D
    – Peter M
    yesterday






  • 42




    @PeterM Possibly.. this is why I worded it as "no longer with the company" that way if the spouse has given an "alternative" narrative such as leaving mutually or by their own choice to save face at home then you aren't dropping them in it directly. If they haven't mentioned leaving at all..well that might get "interesting" but I don't think it would be reasonable to have to consider accommodating the possibility of such a situation.
    – motosubatsu
    yesterday






  • 18




    "married couples aren't one entity" +1. The candidate may not have picked his spouse for her managerial skills. From candidate's POV he may have wanted to avoid working in same organization with his spouse, and is happy to proceed now that that issue is no longer present.
    – Nathan Hughes
    yesterday






  • 1




    Also, since your departure with the initial employee, the financial situation might be a bit more dire in their family, and the increased interest could be making up for that shortcoming. Even if he's working already, having a sudden drop in income as a family may be painful and the offer he suspects he can get might be better than where he's currently at.
    – Anoplexian
    yesterday












  • "the spouse may be able to compartmentalize the situation". Sure, the sun may not rise tomorrow. What is the purpose of such absolutely theoretical abstractions?
    – Fattie
    15 hours ago














  • 51




    Of course that interview question could be rather awkward if the spouse hasn't communicated their termination :D
    – Peter M
    yesterday






  • 42




    @PeterM Possibly.. this is why I worded it as "no longer with the company" that way if the spouse has given an "alternative" narrative such as leaving mutually or by their own choice to save face at home then you aren't dropping them in it directly. If they haven't mentioned leaving at all..well that might get "interesting" but I don't think it would be reasonable to have to consider accommodating the possibility of such a situation.
    – motosubatsu
    yesterday






  • 18




    "married couples aren't one entity" +1. The candidate may not have picked his spouse for her managerial skills. From candidate's POV he may have wanted to avoid working in same organization with his spouse, and is happy to proceed now that that issue is no longer present.
    – Nathan Hughes
    yesterday






  • 1




    Also, since your departure with the initial employee, the financial situation might be a bit more dire in their family, and the increased interest could be making up for that shortcoming. Even if he's working already, having a sudden drop in income as a family may be painful and the offer he suspects he can get might be better than where he's currently at.
    – Anoplexian
    yesterday












  • "the spouse may be able to compartmentalize the situation". Sure, the sun may not rise tomorrow. What is the purpose of such absolutely theoretical abstractions?
    – Fattie
    15 hours ago








51




51




Of course that interview question could be rather awkward if the spouse hasn't communicated their termination :D
– Peter M
yesterday




Of course that interview question could be rather awkward if the spouse hasn't communicated their termination :D
– Peter M
yesterday




42




42




@PeterM Possibly.. this is why I worded it as "no longer with the company" that way if the spouse has given an "alternative" narrative such as leaving mutually or by their own choice to save face at home then you aren't dropping them in it directly. If they haven't mentioned leaving at all..well that might get "interesting" but I don't think it would be reasonable to have to consider accommodating the possibility of such a situation.
– motosubatsu
yesterday




@PeterM Possibly.. this is why I worded it as "no longer with the company" that way if the spouse has given an "alternative" narrative such as leaving mutually or by their own choice to save face at home then you aren't dropping them in it directly. If they haven't mentioned leaving at all..well that might get "interesting" but I don't think it would be reasonable to have to consider accommodating the possibility of such a situation.
– motosubatsu
yesterday




18




18




"married couples aren't one entity" +1. The candidate may not have picked his spouse for her managerial skills. From candidate's POV he may have wanted to avoid working in same organization with his spouse, and is happy to proceed now that that issue is no longer present.
– Nathan Hughes
yesterday




"married couples aren't one entity" +1. The candidate may not have picked his spouse for her managerial skills. From candidate's POV he may have wanted to avoid working in same organization with his spouse, and is happy to proceed now that that issue is no longer present.
– Nathan Hughes
yesterday




1




1




Also, since your departure with the initial employee, the financial situation might be a bit more dire in their family, and the increased interest could be making up for that shortcoming. Even if he's working already, having a sudden drop in income as a family may be painful and the offer he suspects he can get might be better than where he's currently at.
– Anoplexian
yesterday






Also, since your departure with the initial employee, the financial situation might be a bit more dire in their family, and the increased interest could be making up for that shortcoming. Even if he's working already, having a sudden drop in income as a family may be painful and the offer he suspects he can get might be better than where he's currently at.
– Anoplexian
yesterday














"the spouse may be able to compartmentalize the situation". Sure, the sun may not rise tomorrow. What is the purpose of such absolutely theoretical abstractions?
– Fattie
15 hours ago




"the spouse may be able to compartmentalize the situation". Sure, the sun may not rise tomorrow. What is the purpose of such absolutely theoretical abstractions?
– Fattie
15 hours ago













28














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.






share|improve this answer























  • I wanted to mention that aspect too, even just looking at it from a financial point of view, they have lost a income stream, it makes sense that the job hunt would intensify
    – J.Doe
    yesterday






  • 1




    You are right and I did think about it too. I forgot to mention that the guy is already working. So not that he is currently jobless. I will edit my query and include this information.
    – PagMax
    yesterday










  • @PagMax Already working doesn't really preclude anything. At least in some sectors, just changing jobs can frequently net +20% to wages (not even necessarily taking a promotion, just moving to a different job with more experience); loss of income would be a motivator to rekindle some of those job hunts (especially ones that are already in-progress, and thus less effort than starting from scratch - he was evidently not fully happy before, and now has more incentive to actively search).
    – Delioth
    yesterday










  • @PagMax - nice edit to the question. I've tweaked the answer to (I hope) align with the latest.
    – ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere
    19 hours ago
















28














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.






share|improve this answer























  • I wanted to mention that aspect too, even just looking at it from a financial point of view, they have lost a income stream, it makes sense that the job hunt would intensify
    – J.Doe
    yesterday






  • 1




    You are right and I did think about it too. I forgot to mention that the guy is already working. So not that he is currently jobless. I will edit my query and include this information.
    – PagMax
    yesterday










  • @PagMax Already working doesn't really preclude anything. At least in some sectors, just changing jobs can frequently net +20% to wages (not even necessarily taking a promotion, just moving to a different job with more experience); loss of income would be a motivator to rekindle some of those job hunts (especially ones that are already in-progress, and thus less effort than starting from scratch - he was evidently not fully happy before, and now has more incentive to actively search).
    – Delioth
    yesterday










  • @PagMax - nice edit to the question. I've tweaked the answer to (I hope) align with the latest.
    – ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere
    19 hours ago














28












28








28






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.






share|improve this answer














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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 19 hours ago

























answered yesterday









ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere

2,427820




2,427820












  • I wanted to mention that aspect too, even just looking at it from a financial point of view, they have lost a income stream, it makes sense that the job hunt would intensify
    – J.Doe
    yesterday






  • 1




    You are right and I did think about it too. I forgot to mention that the guy is already working. So not that he is currently jobless. I will edit my query and include this information.
    – PagMax
    yesterday










  • @PagMax Already working doesn't really preclude anything. At least in some sectors, just changing jobs can frequently net +20% to wages (not even necessarily taking a promotion, just moving to a different job with more experience); loss of income would be a motivator to rekindle some of those job hunts (especially ones that are already in-progress, and thus less effort than starting from scratch - he was evidently not fully happy before, and now has more incentive to actively search).
    – Delioth
    yesterday










  • @PagMax - nice edit to the question. I've tweaked the answer to (I hope) align with the latest.
    – ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere
    19 hours ago


















  • I wanted to mention that aspect too, even just looking at it from a financial point of view, they have lost a income stream, it makes sense that the job hunt would intensify
    – J.Doe
    yesterday






  • 1




    You are right and I did think about it too. I forgot to mention that the guy is already working. So not that he is currently jobless. I will edit my query and include this information.
    – PagMax
    yesterday










  • @PagMax Already working doesn't really preclude anything. At least in some sectors, just changing jobs can frequently net +20% to wages (not even necessarily taking a promotion, just moving to a different job with more experience); loss of income would be a motivator to rekindle some of those job hunts (especially ones that are already in-progress, and thus less effort than starting from scratch - he was evidently not fully happy before, and now has more incentive to actively search).
    – Delioth
    yesterday










  • @PagMax - nice edit to the question. I've tweaked the answer to (I hope) align with the latest.
    – ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere
    19 hours ago
















I wanted to mention that aspect too, even just looking at it from a financial point of view, they have lost a income stream, it makes sense that the job hunt would intensify
– J.Doe
yesterday




I wanted to mention that aspect too, even just looking at it from a financial point of view, they have lost a income stream, it makes sense that the job hunt would intensify
– J.Doe
yesterday




1




1




You are right and I did think about it too. I forgot to mention that the guy is already working. So not that he is currently jobless. I will edit my query and include this information.
– PagMax
yesterday




You are right and I did think about it too. I forgot to mention that the guy is already working. So not that he is currently jobless. I will edit my query and include this information.
– PagMax
yesterday












@PagMax Already working doesn't really preclude anything. At least in some sectors, just changing jobs can frequently net +20% to wages (not even necessarily taking a promotion, just moving to a different job with more experience); loss of income would be a motivator to rekindle some of those job hunts (especially ones that are already in-progress, and thus less effort than starting from scratch - he was evidently not fully happy before, and now has more incentive to actively search).
– Delioth
yesterday




@PagMax Already working doesn't really preclude anything. At least in some sectors, just changing jobs can frequently net +20% to wages (not even necessarily taking a promotion, just moving to a different job with more experience); loss of income would be a motivator to rekindle some of those job hunts (especially ones that are already in-progress, and thus less effort than starting from scratch - he was evidently not fully happy before, and now has more incentive to actively search).
– Delioth
yesterday












@PagMax - nice edit to the question. I've tweaked the answer to (I hope) align with the latest.
– ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere
19 hours ago




@PagMax - nice edit to the question. I've tweaked the answer to (I hope) align with the latest.
– ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere
19 hours ago











21














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.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Alan Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 11




    You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)
    – Stephen DiMarco
    yesterday








  • 8




    @StephenDiMarco The issue is not marital status. It is close and ongoing association with a former employee whose employment was terminated for what appears to be a serious breach of contract. Common sense says the likelihood that the two people won't communicate with each other regularly in future is zero and that communication has the obvious risk of bad consequences.
    – alephzero
    yesterday






  • 5




    In the UK what you're describing (refusing to interview this person because they're married to someone you consider 'undesirable') would be unlawful and could result in hefty fines; acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
    – Richard
    yesterday








  • 5




    @Richard - I believe you are mis-applying that law, it is not the fact of their marital status but the relationship with an employee who left in difficult circumstances.
    – Alan Dev
    yesterday






  • 6




    @JimClay - Without wanting to seem inflammatory, the law is in place specifically to protect people like this from views like these.
    – Richard
    yesterday


















21














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.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Alan Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 11




    You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)
    – Stephen DiMarco
    yesterday








  • 8




    @StephenDiMarco The issue is not marital status. It is close and ongoing association with a former employee whose employment was terminated for what appears to be a serious breach of contract. Common sense says the likelihood that the two people won't communicate with each other regularly in future is zero and that communication has the obvious risk of bad consequences.
    – alephzero
    yesterday






  • 5




    In the UK what you're describing (refusing to interview this person because they're married to someone you consider 'undesirable') would be unlawful and could result in hefty fines; acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
    – Richard
    yesterday








  • 5




    @Richard - I believe you are mis-applying that law, it is not the fact of their marital status but the relationship with an employee who left in difficult circumstances.
    – Alan Dev
    yesterday






  • 6




    @JimClay - Without wanting to seem inflammatory, the law is in place specifically to protect people like this from views like these.
    – Richard
    yesterday
















21












21








21






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.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Alan Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









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.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




Alan Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 11 hours ago





















New contributor




Alan Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered yesterday









Alan Dev

43317




43317




New contributor




Alan Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Alan Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Alan Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 11




    You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)
    – Stephen DiMarco
    yesterday








  • 8




    @StephenDiMarco The issue is not marital status. It is close and ongoing association with a former employee whose employment was terminated for what appears to be a serious breach of contract. Common sense says the likelihood that the two people won't communicate with each other regularly in future is zero and that communication has the obvious risk of bad consequences.
    – alephzero
    yesterday






  • 5




    In the UK what you're describing (refusing to interview this person because they're married to someone you consider 'undesirable') would be unlawful and could result in hefty fines; acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
    – Richard
    yesterday








  • 5




    @Richard - I believe you are mis-applying that law, it is not the fact of their marital status but the relationship with an employee who left in difficult circumstances.
    – Alan Dev
    yesterday






  • 6




    @JimClay - Without wanting to seem inflammatory, the law is in place specifically to protect people like this from views like these.
    – Richard
    yesterday
















  • 11




    You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)
    – Stephen DiMarco
    yesterday








  • 8




    @StephenDiMarco The issue is not marital status. It is close and ongoing association with a former employee whose employment was terminated for what appears to be a serious breach of contract. Common sense says the likelihood that the two people won't communicate with each other regularly in future is zero and that communication has the obvious risk of bad consequences.
    – alephzero
    yesterday






  • 5




    In the UK what you're describing (refusing to interview this person because they're married to someone you consider 'undesirable') would be unlawful and could result in hefty fines; acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
    – Richard
    yesterday








  • 5




    @Richard - I believe you are mis-applying that law, it is not the fact of their marital status but the relationship with an employee who left in difficult circumstances.
    – Alan Dev
    yesterday






  • 6




    @JimClay - Without wanting to seem inflammatory, the law is in place specifically to protect people like this from views like these.
    – Richard
    yesterday










11




11




You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)
– Stephen DiMarco
yesterday






You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)
– Stephen DiMarco
yesterday






8




8




@StephenDiMarco The issue is not marital status. It is close and ongoing association with a former employee whose employment was terminated for what appears to be a serious breach of contract. Common sense says the likelihood that the two people won't communicate with each other regularly in future is zero and that communication has the obvious risk of bad consequences.
– alephzero
yesterday




@StephenDiMarco The issue is not marital status. It is close and ongoing association with a former employee whose employment was terminated for what appears to be a serious breach of contract. Common sense says the likelihood that the two people won't communicate with each other regularly in future is zero and that communication has the obvious risk of bad consequences.
– alephzero
yesterday




5




5




In the UK what you're describing (refusing to interview this person because they're married to someone you consider 'undesirable') would be unlawful and could result in hefty fines; acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
– Richard
yesterday






In the UK what you're describing (refusing to interview this person because they're married to someone you consider 'undesirable') would be unlawful and could result in hefty fines; acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
– Richard
yesterday






5




5




@Richard - I believe you are mis-applying that law, it is not the fact of their marital status but the relationship with an employee who left in difficult circumstances.
– Alan Dev
yesterday




@Richard - I believe you are mis-applying that law, it is not the fact of their marital status but the relationship with an employee who left in difficult circumstances.
– Alan Dev
yesterday




6




6




@JimClay - Without wanting to seem inflammatory, the law is in place specifically to protect people like this from views like these.
– Richard
yesterday






@JimClay - Without wanting to seem inflammatory, the law is in place specifically to protect people like this from views like these.
– Richard
yesterday













17














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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 6




    "bunny-boiler"?
    – TankorSmash
    yesterday






  • 15




    @TankorSmash I believe that Snow is making a reference to Glenn Close's insane character in Fatal Attraction who famously broke into the house of the man that spurned her after an affair and boiled his daughter's pet rabbit
    – Kevin
    yesterday








  • 1




    urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bunny%20boiler covers it surprisingly well. Basically a stalker-ex with an axe to grind.
    – Criggie
    yesterday










  • Obviously, some of this depends on the reason for termination. Huh? This is not at all obvious to me. It's her husband who is applying, not her.
    – Ben Crowell
    11 hours ago
















17














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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 6




    "bunny-boiler"?
    – TankorSmash
    yesterday






  • 15




    @TankorSmash I believe that Snow is making a reference to Glenn Close's insane character in Fatal Attraction who famously broke into the house of the man that spurned her after an affair and boiled his daughter's pet rabbit
    – Kevin
    yesterday








  • 1




    urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bunny%20boiler covers it surprisingly well. Basically a stalker-ex with an axe to grind.
    – Criggie
    yesterday










  • Obviously, some of this depends on the reason for termination. Huh? This is not at all obvious to me. It's her husband who is applying, not her.
    – Ben Crowell
    11 hours ago














17












17








17






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.






share|improve this answer












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.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









Snow

58.3k51188237




58.3k51188237








  • 6




    "bunny-boiler"?
    – TankorSmash
    yesterday






  • 15




    @TankorSmash I believe that Snow is making a reference to Glenn Close's insane character in Fatal Attraction who famously broke into the house of the man that spurned her after an affair and boiled his daughter's pet rabbit
    – Kevin
    yesterday








  • 1




    urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bunny%20boiler covers it surprisingly well. Basically a stalker-ex with an axe to grind.
    – Criggie
    yesterday










  • Obviously, some of this depends on the reason for termination. Huh? This is not at all obvious to me. It's her husband who is applying, not her.
    – Ben Crowell
    11 hours ago














  • 6




    "bunny-boiler"?
    – TankorSmash
    yesterday






  • 15




    @TankorSmash I believe that Snow is making a reference to Glenn Close's insane character in Fatal Attraction who famously broke into the house of the man that spurned her after an affair and boiled his daughter's pet rabbit
    – Kevin
    yesterday








  • 1




    urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bunny%20boiler covers it surprisingly well. Basically a stalker-ex with an axe to grind.
    – Criggie
    yesterday










  • Obviously, some of this depends on the reason for termination. Huh? This is not at all obvious to me. It's her husband who is applying, not her.
    – Ben Crowell
    11 hours ago








6




6




"bunny-boiler"?
– TankorSmash
yesterday




"bunny-boiler"?
– TankorSmash
yesterday




15




15




@TankorSmash I believe that Snow is making a reference to Glenn Close's insane character in Fatal Attraction who famously broke into the house of the man that spurned her after an affair and boiled his daughter's pet rabbit
– Kevin
yesterday






@TankorSmash I believe that Snow is making a reference to Glenn Close's insane character in Fatal Attraction who famously broke into the house of the man that spurned her after an affair and boiled his daughter's pet rabbit
– Kevin
yesterday






1




1




urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bunny%20boiler covers it surprisingly well. Basically a stalker-ex with an axe to grind.
– Criggie
yesterday




urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bunny%20boiler covers it surprisingly well. Basically a stalker-ex with an axe to grind.
– Criggie
yesterday












Obviously, some of this depends on the reason for termination. Huh? This is not at all obvious to me. It's her husband who is applying, not her.
– Ben Crowell
11 hours ago




Obviously, some of this depends on the reason for termination. Huh? This is not at all obvious to me. It's her husband who is applying, not her.
– Ben Crowell
11 hours ago











9














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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 2




    Or another variation - get HR (not recruiters) looped in. They tend to be more familiar with the legalities and risk, and would pull in a lawyer as needed.
    – selbie
    19 hours ago










  • Yes, this is exactly correct.
    – Fattie
    15 hours ago










  • @selbie True, but HR at a small, 50-person company tends to be quite small. In the case of the similarly-sized company I work for, it's one person, who also happens to be the accountant.
    – reirab
    11 hours ago


















9














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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 2




    Or another variation - get HR (not recruiters) looped in. They tend to be more familiar with the legalities and risk, and would pull in a lawyer as needed.
    – selbie
    19 hours ago










  • Yes, this is exactly correct.
    – Fattie
    15 hours ago










  • @selbie True, but HR at a small, 50-person company tends to be quite small. In the case of the similarly-sized company I work for, it's one person, who also happens to be the accountant.
    – reirab
    11 hours ago
















9












9








9






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.






share|improve this answer












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.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 22 hours ago









reirab

1,124717




1,124717








  • 2




    Or another variation - get HR (not recruiters) looped in. They tend to be more familiar with the legalities and risk, and would pull in a lawyer as needed.
    – selbie
    19 hours ago










  • Yes, this is exactly correct.
    – Fattie
    15 hours ago










  • @selbie True, but HR at a small, 50-person company tends to be quite small. In the case of the similarly-sized company I work for, it's one person, who also happens to be the accountant.
    – reirab
    11 hours ago
















  • 2




    Or another variation - get HR (not recruiters) looped in. They tend to be more familiar with the legalities and risk, and would pull in a lawyer as needed.
    – selbie
    19 hours ago










  • Yes, this is exactly correct.
    – Fattie
    15 hours ago










  • @selbie True, but HR at a small, 50-person company tends to be quite small. In the case of the similarly-sized company I work for, it's one person, who also happens to be the accountant.
    – reirab
    11 hours ago










2




2




Or another variation - get HR (not recruiters) looped in. They tend to be more familiar with the legalities and risk, and would pull in a lawyer as needed.
– selbie
19 hours ago




Or another variation - get HR (not recruiters) looped in. They tend to be more familiar with the legalities and risk, and would pull in a lawyer as needed.
– selbie
19 hours ago












Yes, this is exactly correct.
– Fattie
15 hours ago




Yes, this is exactly correct.
– Fattie
15 hours ago












@selbie True, but HR at a small, 50-person company tends to be quite small. In the case of the similarly-sized company I work for, it's one person, who also happens to be the accountant.
– reirab
11 hours ago






@selbie True, but HR at a small, 50-person company tends to be quite small. In the case of the similarly-sized company I work for, it's one person, who also happens to be the accountant.
– reirab
11 hours ago













3














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.






share|improve this answer























  • If you fired the wife as your personal financial planner for fraud/embezzlement/whatever, would you do as you advise OP and consider hiring the husband as your financial planner with no bias whatsoever due to the relationship with your previous financial manager?
    – Jim Clay
    4 hours ago












  • And honestly, if you say “yes” I won’t believe you.
    – Jim Clay
    4 hours ago
















3














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.






share|improve this answer























  • If you fired the wife as your personal financial planner for fraud/embezzlement/whatever, would you do as you advise OP and consider hiring the husband as your financial planner with no bias whatsoever due to the relationship with your previous financial manager?
    – Jim Clay
    4 hours ago












  • And honestly, if you say “yes” I won’t believe you.
    – Jim Clay
    4 hours ago














3












3








3






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.






share|improve this answer














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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 9 hours ago









Keith Thompson

2,1951020




2,1951020










answered 13 hours ago









Ben Crowell

558311




558311












  • If you fired the wife as your personal financial planner for fraud/embezzlement/whatever, would you do as you advise OP and consider hiring the husband as your financial planner with no bias whatsoever due to the relationship with your previous financial manager?
    – Jim Clay
    4 hours ago












  • And honestly, if you say “yes” I won’t believe you.
    – Jim Clay
    4 hours ago


















  • If you fired the wife as your personal financial planner for fraud/embezzlement/whatever, would you do as you advise OP and consider hiring the husband as your financial planner with no bias whatsoever due to the relationship with your previous financial manager?
    – Jim Clay
    4 hours ago












  • And honestly, if you say “yes” I won’t believe you.
    – Jim Clay
    4 hours ago
















If you fired the wife as your personal financial planner for fraud/embezzlement/whatever, would you do as you advise OP and consider hiring the husband as your financial planner with no bias whatsoever due to the relationship with your previous financial manager?
– Jim Clay
4 hours ago






If you fired the wife as your personal financial planner for fraud/embezzlement/whatever, would you do as you advise OP and consider hiring the husband as your financial planner with no bias whatsoever due to the relationship with your previous financial manager?
– Jim Clay
4 hours ago














And honestly, if you say “yes” I won’t believe you.
– Jim Clay
4 hours ago




And honestly, if you say “yes” I won’t believe you.
– Jim Clay
4 hours ago











2














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






share|improve this answer

















  • 6




    While not wrong, this answer would be vastly improved with support.
    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 2




    @Harper That's like saying "I know 'you shouldn't hit your hand with a hammer' is a good idea, but you should back it up". To do so would be superfluous
    – Richard U
    yesterday






  • 11




    I'm claiming it is not.
    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 7




    @RichardU If someone asks, "Should I hit my hand with a hammer", then it would not be superfluous to provide support in your answer. Obviously it is not superfluous here either, since the person has asked the question.
    – Tashus
    yesterday








  • 3




    Copying @StephenDiMarco 's comment from another answer, as it is relevant here: "You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)"
    – Tashus
    yesterday
















2














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






share|improve this answer

















  • 6




    While not wrong, this answer would be vastly improved with support.
    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 2




    @Harper That's like saying "I know 'you shouldn't hit your hand with a hammer' is a good idea, but you should back it up". To do so would be superfluous
    – Richard U
    yesterday






  • 11




    I'm claiming it is not.
    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 7




    @RichardU If someone asks, "Should I hit my hand with a hammer", then it would not be superfluous to provide support in your answer. Obviously it is not superfluous here either, since the person has asked the question.
    – Tashus
    yesterday








  • 3




    Copying @StephenDiMarco 's comment from another answer, as it is relevant here: "You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)"
    – Tashus
    yesterday














2












2








2






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






share|improve this answer












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







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









Richard U

87.9k63222343




87.9k63222343








  • 6




    While not wrong, this answer would be vastly improved with support.
    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 2




    @Harper That's like saying "I know 'you shouldn't hit your hand with a hammer' is a good idea, but you should back it up". To do so would be superfluous
    – Richard U
    yesterday






  • 11




    I'm claiming it is not.
    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 7




    @RichardU If someone asks, "Should I hit my hand with a hammer", then it would not be superfluous to provide support in your answer. Obviously it is not superfluous here either, since the person has asked the question.
    – Tashus
    yesterday








  • 3




    Copying @StephenDiMarco 's comment from another answer, as it is relevant here: "You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)"
    – Tashus
    yesterday














  • 6




    While not wrong, this answer would be vastly improved with support.
    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 2




    @Harper That's like saying "I know 'you shouldn't hit your hand with a hammer' is a good idea, but you should back it up". To do so would be superfluous
    – Richard U
    yesterday






  • 11




    I'm claiming it is not.
    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 7




    @RichardU If someone asks, "Should I hit my hand with a hammer", then it would not be superfluous to provide support in your answer. Obviously it is not superfluous here either, since the person has asked the question.
    – Tashus
    yesterday








  • 3




    Copying @StephenDiMarco 's comment from another answer, as it is relevant here: "You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)"
    – Tashus
    yesterday








6




6




While not wrong, this answer would be vastly improved with support.
– Harper
yesterday




While not wrong, this answer would be vastly improved with support.
– Harper
yesterday




2




2




@Harper That's like saying "I know 'you shouldn't hit your hand with a hammer' is a good idea, but you should back it up". To do so would be superfluous
– Richard U
yesterday




@Harper That's like saying "I know 'you shouldn't hit your hand with a hammer' is a good idea, but you should back it up". To do so would be superfluous
– Richard U
yesterday




11




11




I'm claiming it is not.
– Harper
yesterday




I'm claiming it is not.
– Harper
yesterday




7




7




@RichardU If someone asks, "Should I hit my hand with a hammer", then it would not be superfluous to provide support in your answer. Obviously it is not superfluous here either, since the person has asked the question.
– Tashus
yesterday






@RichardU If someone asks, "Should I hit my hand with a hammer", then it would not be superfluous to provide support in your answer. Obviously it is not superfluous here either, since the person has asked the question.
– Tashus
yesterday






3




3




Copying @StephenDiMarco 's comment from another answer, as it is relevant here: "You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)"
– Tashus
yesterday




Copying @StephenDiMarco 's comment from another answer, as it is relevant here: "You should be careful there may be laws preventing this depending on where you live. The Fair Employment and Housing Act does provide some protection related to marital status which prevents an employer from having or enforcing a policy against employing spouses in the same company. (That last line is taken from an avvo.com Q&A)"
– Tashus
yesterday











-1














Go through with the interview and let that team decide if they want to hire him. If there are other applicants as qualified as he is then maybe hire one of them if they would be a better fit.



I don't know what country this is happening in, but in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all. Even if he does something illegal, the business will win in the end. There's no real reason to be apprehensive about this.



If you interview him, don't hire him, and if he can't prove that he wasn't hired due to discrimination there's really nothing he can do about it. There are no downsides to just letting the natural process happen here.






share|improve this answer



















  • 7




    "in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all." - I don't understand why you say this. I can think of ways a single person could harm a business, and a 50-employee business is not large. If the ways to harm the business are illegal, then what can happen is that the saboteur loses as well as the business.
    – David Thornley
    yesterday






  • 5




    A single person can often very easily seriously harm a company. It would be especially easy if they worked in IT. Think "sudo rm -rf /" while making sure that the backups are toast. Or simply setting a fire.
    – Jim Clay
    yesterday








  • 1




    As someone who is employed by a company of a similar size to the OP's in the US, I would very much have to agree with David. I can think of all kinds of things that I - or any of several other people - could personally do that would have quite major effects on said company. And, depending on how long the person wanting to do that had to plan and execute such task, it could likely be done in a way that would make it difficult or impossible to authoritatively trace back to the perpetrator. This is why fired employees are often immediately walked out the door (after taking their keys.)
    – reirab
    23 hours ago










  • (wan'twant)
    – Peter Mortensen
    22 hours ago












  • @PeterMortensen: Fixed.
    – Keith Thompson
    9 hours ago
















-1














Go through with the interview and let that team decide if they want to hire him. If there are other applicants as qualified as he is then maybe hire one of them if they would be a better fit.



I don't know what country this is happening in, but in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all. Even if he does something illegal, the business will win in the end. There's no real reason to be apprehensive about this.



If you interview him, don't hire him, and if he can't prove that he wasn't hired due to discrimination there's really nothing he can do about it. There are no downsides to just letting the natural process happen here.






share|improve this answer



















  • 7




    "in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all." - I don't understand why you say this. I can think of ways a single person could harm a business, and a 50-employee business is not large. If the ways to harm the business are illegal, then what can happen is that the saboteur loses as well as the business.
    – David Thornley
    yesterday






  • 5




    A single person can often very easily seriously harm a company. It would be especially easy if they worked in IT. Think "sudo rm -rf /" while making sure that the backups are toast. Or simply setting a fire.
    – Jim Clay
    yesterday








  • 1




    As someone who is employed by a company of a similar size to the OP's in the US, I would very much have to agree with David. I can think of all kinds of things that I - or any of several other people - could personally do that would have quite major effects on said company. And, depending on how long the person wanting to do that had to plan and execute such task, it could likely be done in a way that would make it difficult or impossible to authoritatively trace back to the perpetrator. This is why fired employees are often immediately walked out the door (after taking their keys.)
    – reirab
    23 hours ago










  • (wan'twant)
    – Peter Mortensen
    22 hours ago












  • @PeterMortensen: Fixed.
    – Keith Thompson
    9 hours ago














-1












-1








-1






Go through with the interview and let that team decide if they want to hire him. If there are other applicants as qualified as he is then maybe hire one of them if they would be a better fit.



I don't know what country this is happening in, but in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all. Even if he does something illegal, the business will win in the end. There's no real reason to be apprehensive about this.



If you interview him, don't hire him, and if he can't prove that he wasn't hired due to discrimination there's really nothing he can do about it. There are no downsides to just letting the natural process happen here.






share|improve this answer














Go through with the interview and let that team decide if they want to hire him. If there are other applicants as qualified as he is then maybe hire one of them if they would be a better fit.



I don't know what country this is happening in, but in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all. Even if he does something illegal, the business will win in the end. There's no real reason to be apprehensive about this.



If you interview him, don't hire him, and if he can't prove that he wasn't hired due to discrimination there's really nothing he can do about it. There are no downsides to just letting the natural process happen here.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 9 hours ago









Keith Thompson

2,1951020




2,1951020










answered yesterday









Steve

2,110516




2,110516








  • 7




    "in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all." - I don't understand why you say this. I can think of ways a single person could harm a business, and a 50-employee business is not large. If the ways to harm the business are illegal, then what can happen is that the saboteur loses as well as the business.
    – David Thornley
    yesterday






  • 5




    A single person can often very easily seriously harm a company. It would be especially easy if they worked in IT. Think "sudo rm -rf /" while making sure that the backups are toast. Or simply setting a fire.
    – Jim Clay
    yesterday








  • 1




    As someone who is employed by a company of a similar size to the OP's in the US, I would very much have to agree with David. I can think of all kinds of things that I - or any of several other people - could personally do that would have quite major effects on said company. And, depending on how long the person wanting to do that had to plan and execute such task, it could likely be done in a way that would make it difficult or impossible to authoritatively trace back to the perpetrator. This is why fired employees are often immediately walked out the door (after taking their keys.)
    – reirab
    23 hours ago










  • (wan'twant)
    – Peter Mortensen
    22 hours ago












  • @PeterMortensen: Fixed.
    – Keith Thompson
    9 hours ago














  • 7




    "in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all." - I don't understand why you say this. I can think of ways a single person could harm a business, and a 50-employee business is not large. If the ways to harm the business are illegal, then what can happen is that the saboteur loses as well as the business.
    – David Thornley
    yesterday






  • 5




    A single person can often very easily seriously harm a company. It would be especially easy if they worked in IT. Think "sudo rm -rf /" while making sure that the backups are toast. Or simply setting a fire.
    – Jim Clay
    yesterday








  • 1




    As someone who is employed by a company of a similar size to the OP's in the US, I would very much have to agree with David. I can think of all kinds of things that I - or any of several other people - could personally do that would have quite major effects on said company. And, depending on how long the person wanting to do that had to plan and execute such task, it could likely be done in a way that would make it difficult or impossible to authoritatively trace back to the perpetrator. This is why fired employees are often immediately walked out the door (after taking their keys.)
    – reirab
    23 hours ago










  • (wan'twant)
    – Peter Mortensen
    22 hours ago












  • @PeterMortensen: Fixed.
    – Keith Thompson
    9 hours ago








7




7




"in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all." - I don't understand why you say this. I can think of ways a single person could harm a business, and a 50-employee business is not large. If the ways to harm the business are illegal, then what can happen is that the saboteur loses as well as the business.
– David Thornley
yesterday




"in America a singular person can't get revenge on a company in a way that will have a serious effect on the company at all." - I don't understand why you say this. I can think of ways a single person could harm a business, and a 50-employee business is not large. If the ways to harm the business are illegal, then what can happen is that the saboteur loses as well as the business.
– David Thornley
yesterday




5




5




A single person can often very easily seriously harm a company. It would be especially easy if they worked in IT. Think "sudo rm -rf /" while making sure that the backups are toast. Or simply setting a fire.
– Jim Clay
yesterday






A single person can often very easily seriously harm a company. It would be especially easy if they worked in IT. Think "sudo rm -rf /" while making sure that the backups are toast. Or simply setting a fire.
– Jim Clay
yesterday






1




1




As someone who is employed by a company of a similar size to the OP's in the US, I would very much have to agree with David. I can think of all kinds of things that I - or any of several other people - could personally do that would have quite major effects on said company. And, depending on how long the person wanting to do that had to plan and execute such task, it could likely be done in a way that would make it difficult or impossible to authoritatively trace back to the perpetrator. This is why fired employees are often immediately walked out the door (after taking their keys.)
– reirab
23 hours ago




As someone who is employed by a company of a similar size to the OP's in the US, I would very much have to agree with David. I can think of all kinds of things that I - or any of several other people - could personally do that would have quite major effects on said company. And, depending on how long the person wanting to do that had to plan and execute such task, it could likely be done in a way that would make it difficult or impossible to authoritatively trace back to the perpetrator. This is why fired employees are often immediately walked out the door (after taking their keys.)
– reirab
23 hours ago












(wan'twant)
– Peter Mortensen
22 hours ago






(wan'twant)
– Peter Mortensen
22 hours ago














@PeterMortensen: Fixed.
– Keith Thompson
9 hours ago




@PeterMortensen: Fixed.
– Keith Thompson
9 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to The Workplace Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125833%2finterviewing-spouse-of-a-fired-employee%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown











Popular posts from this blog

How to make a Squid Proxy server?

Is this a new Fibonacci Identity?

19世紀