I have done about 75 coding interviews for big tech companies. I have told a fair number of people (around 10) that I would be submitting a no-hire, but then I went on to coach them for another 15 minutes on how they could improve. I never once heard from anyone on the subject and all the people I told were actually grateful 1) that they wouldn't be left wondering and 2) how they could pass the next one.

I'd want someone to do the same.

All it takes is 1 candidate with an axe to grind and I guarantee you'll never give feedback again.

It's fine to build a better world until then.

"Until then" means others will pay for your decision to ignore policy when it happens. It's never on the person who -- with every good intention, full of an instinct to "build a better world" -- willfully ignores the stuffy rules in handbooks and HR guidelines. Instead, when it backfires and someone does threaten to sue, it's precisely execs, HRs, legal who have to deal with it. The rules are there for good reason.

I run our hiring process and my employer is small enough that I would be personally responsible for this

Exactly. The lock analogy is flawed and a distraction. I made a local universe of how I think the world should be. I gave those people the respect I think we all deserve, and hopefully they stand up and do the same. Maybe they are in HR, or become a C-level and institute the same things.

When you comply in advance, you not only let "them" win, there isn't even a them here, just an idea of a possible threat. Fuck that. Anyone can sue for anything, you can't "do stuff so you won't get sued". Frankly, this is cowards take that lets an nebulous idea pollute your world.

We don't have to Joan of Arc or Don Quixote, we can just do the little stuff that changes culture in the direction we'd like to see it changed.

Humans are incredibly valuable across many many dimensions, not letting them know how they can improve is a massive waste and harmful to both parties.

A better world would be one with no locks on doors. But until then, I'm going to lock doors.

Plenty of people keep their doors unlocked until they get stolen from.

Sure. And they accomplished nothing.

Besides living the dream of a high-trust society?

I'm not convinced they'd prevail in court. Seems like one of those truthisms about American litigiousness that wouldn't bear out in practice.

Doesn’t matter. Simply defending against the claim costs significant money, and you can’t recover those costs.

Best to avoid the claim altogether.

Filing such a claim costs money too, and any decent lawyer will tell the claimant that he has no case.

Still dubious. I don't think miniscule risk justifies shitty behavior and making life worse for everyone.

I feel you, but there is a big difference between (a) "justification" in the overall cost versus benefit to all parties involved and (b) the narrowly self-interested thing to do.

A couple years ago I was turned down for a position after an initial screening interview because they said my writing sample didn't meet certain criteria. I felt it arguably did, but I just said "thank you for your time and consideration", and moved on. I was just glad to get a clear "no" at an early stage.

They've probably revised their policy by now, I suspect, but I appreciated that they made the effort.

Their policy will last until they're sued. All it takes is one to ruin it for everybody.

Yeah… the common connection thing is what’s at play here. This is why high-stakes introductions are done through people you know, to show that you can be trusted lest you be a social outcast.