* Forward copies of emails to the company's leadership/HR department.
* Keep printed copies of the emails handy in case he decides to retaliate with lawyers.
* Keep your own legal counsel on speed-dial.
* Move on with your life.
There's not much you can do from a legal standpoint, with regards to grievance/redress. Escalating the situation through contacting his boss/HR carries a risk, even though you have the moral high-ground, but it could work in getting him punished. Or it could achieve absolutely nothing.
Or he has a long history of this abusive behavior and this is the last straw that will get him ejected from the company for being a serious liability/generally unpleasant.
He has your resume, and he's exhibited awful behavior -- legal counsel should definitely be at your disposal on a moments notice.
Naturally, if it really interests you, you can consult a lawyer to verify whether there are any punitive measures you can apply against him. The OP hasn't indicated that the guy has harassed her per se, so I don't know if she has any legal standing regarding that.
This is the best advice I've seen.
Also I'd like to add,if you can don't escalate to a lawsuit prematurely.
A lot of companies avoid hiring a person who files lawsuits against corporations.
Its unfair, but its how the real world works. HR exists to protect the company not its people.
I know I mention this a lot on HN, but also read Corporate Confidential to understand how American Corporations and HR really works.
It seems to me that informing HR, and telling him no (and why) is enough. I most certainly would not initiate a lawsuit over something like this. It was inappropriate and unprofessional; don't respond with something over the top, which is unprofessional in a different way.
But I'm male, and have literally never been harassed at work over anything (not gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation, facial hair, choice of editor... nothing), so what do I know?
She's already lost the job and it's not like they're going to publicise her grievance. I really can't see what risk there is to her of raising the issue. If I was her I'd also ask for their company policy on this sort of behaviour.
Because the OP is not in a position to help him understand why this is inappropriate behavior or to see that it is sufficiently addressed. Personally, I would not want to have any further contact with someone who treated me like that.
Because he needs to face consequences for his behavior.
Does he? Is "facing consequences" the only way for someone to learn?
If I "faced consequences" for every stupid thing I've done in my life time I'd probably have spent the last 30 years in jail. Because at the age of 42, I've done a ton of dumb, inappropriate and just plain stupid things in my life.
Most of the time, someone has explained to me that what I did was wrong and I was able to learn from it and change my behavior. And look at me today - gainfully employed since I was 14, happily married, three children.
These zero tolerance policies of "facing consequences" for any infraction don't benefit society at all. There is no true binary decision of, Bad Behavior = Punishment, Good Behavior = No Punishment. Bad behavior can be challenged, forgiven and forgotten without having to ruin someone's career over it.
Repeated bad behavior, on the other hand... Of course you need to escalate at that point.
"Face consequences" doesn't necessarily mean "get fired". In this case it may be as simple as his boss pulling him aside to explain exactly how stupid what he did was. It may mean being pulled off the interview team and replaced with someone who's better at that task.
It's worth noting that neither we nor the original interviewee know whether this is repeated bad behavior or not. It might've been a one-time slip-up, or he might be serially abusing his position. We can't know, but his boss can and probably does. Go ahead and report to the folks who are in a position to make an intelligent decision.
> Is "facing consequences" the only way for someone to learn?
No. Most people learn the basic lesson of not hitting job candidates up for dates (and other related ethical issues) either during orientation in their first job or--even before that--when learning about the harm caused by abuses of power.
> Repeated bad behavior, on the other hand... Of course you need to escalate at that point.
From reddit OP's description, it seems likely that the interviewer has done this sort of thing before.
What if he's a 10x engineer? He's a massive PR liability because of our insane outrage culture, but he's a very valuable asset for, you know, his actual job.
If he’s interviewing, then that is his actual job. If he’s hitting on people while representing the company in any context, e.g. at conferences, that is his actual job.
The way you framed this as a “PR liability” suggests you don’t think there’s anything wrong here, it’s just a question of dollars and cents to the company’s bottom line. That’s exactly the kind of sociopathy that is the problem.
You have to stop and decide that there is a moral and values problem, and that these things matter more than a few bucks. If the company has values around this, it will make sure people have training around what is not acceptable behaviour. It will not pass out cards, 10x engineers get a green card, 5x engineers get a yellow card, 1x engineers get a red card.
Everyone will get the same message about what the company values, and steps--I will not say what those steps are, maybe training should have happened before this incident, maybe coaching should happen afterwards, maybe firing is not necessary--and steps will be taken to ensure that everyone in the company acts in accordance with the company’s values.
Also, my sociopathic HR lawyers says that if you decline to hire someone, and then any one of your employees hit on them, you are exposing your company to a lawsuit alleging that they were qualified, but you elected not to hire them to pave the ay for hitting on them without any repercussions, e.g. embarrassment if they turn you down and tell all your colleagues that you hit on them.
Guard against this possibility is remarkably easy: Nobody hits on job applicants. If you are interviewing people, it is your duty to know this, and your company’s duty to ensure that you know this.
Either that, or you had better have one hell of a documented paper trail explaining how they were good enough to interview, but not good enough to hire, and explaining why the person you ended up hiring was clearly superior.
In my experience, any company with the kind of process that can defend itself against such lawsuits wouldn’t permit an employee to expose them to the lawsuit in the first place.
If one of their managers has read this, I’m sure they’re horrified.
You're right I don't see anything wrong with the situation as presented. It's funny, guy has some balls to ask for a date after that. I'll agree he was pretty stupid about it. But I see all the time much stupider advances that actually get accepted instead of rejected. I'd say forgive and forget but I don't see anything to forgive. Asking for a date is how you get dates, even if the context for asking is unusual. I'd like for shy men to still be able to hear the worst thing that'll happen is "she'll say 'lol no, loser'", but now the worst thing that can happen is she'll be so offended she'll throw a fit and publicly name you and destroy your career. Thankfully that hasn't happened here yet. "This made me feel upset. How should I handle this, random internet people?" is a reasonable way to approach this if you don't already have a philosophy that says "chill out and move on".
There's a side conversation here that I'm sort of interested in. There is a certain moral obligation to protecting the company you work for and not putting it under risk with thing like discrimination-based non-hires -- but why should sociopathic lawyers get to decide what risks are actually there or not? It's immoral some of the things many companies do in all legality, risk-free. You won't stir up an internet shit storm for every one of them, even if you can get a few. Not so long ago the behavior this woman reported would have not been cause for such outrage and moralizing displayed on this page. What changed in humans since then? I really don't think we've gotten all that more moral. I'd say instead what changed is the sociopathic lawyers became even more powerful, and saw a great and endless revenue stream for themselves by making it easy to destroy people and businesses for these very basic and human drives, faux pas mistakes at worst.
> I'd like for shy men to still be able to hear the worst thing that'll happen is "she'll say 'lol no, loser'", but now the worst thing that can happen is she'll be so offended she'll throw a fit and publicly name you and destroy your career.
Context is important. Asking a stranger out for a date at a bar has a worst case scenario of hearing "no". Asking someone out whom you just rejected for a job listing has a very, very different worst case scenario.
For fuck's sake, did I really have to just spell that out?
> why should sociopathic lawyers get to decide what risks are actually there or not?
Sociopathic or not, employment lawyers have a lot to say about liability and risk for business because they know the relevant laws very well and know how to make persuasive arguments in court for corner cases where precedent isn't entirely clear.
Again, did I actually have to spell that out for you?
It's worth adding, too: aside from the legal liability angle, what about what the invitation to a romantic encounter does to that applicant for the rest of the interview? Now the rest of the interview, from her perspective, is all about that dude's romantic interest in her, and no longer a professional encounter. It's all downhill from there. If she gets hired, how can she possibly work without the pressure of thinking that her job or advancement depends on her response to that guy's advances? If she doesn't get hired, how can she possibly think she was fairly treated?
I don't have an inherent problem with coworkers asking each other out on dates, or within a professional context in general, but doing it in an interview is beyond stupid.
Your argument seems to be, "If only I would appreciate how good this is for him, I would stop worrying about whether his choices are toxic for anyone else." Am I missing some relevant nuänce?
I don't think that's it. One should worry about toxic choices. I just don't think a culture of asking people out is toxic. Something I do find toxic is an environment of conformity that imagines itself so fragile that it overreacts to the slightest deviation from what those in power say as if it were an existential threat.
Just because someone is good at their jobs shouldn't excuse inappropriate behavior. It lessens everyone else on the team and those seeking employment. Look at professional sports just because they're 10x ers should they get away with their transgressions. Or, because they are so good should they be held to higher standards.
What if he scares off 10 1x engineers because he's poisonous? Or what if he scares off another 10x engineer who happens to be a woman? Keeping toxic people around is not usually going to pay off, regardless of "outrage culture" (which is an odd way of describing a culture that punishes abuse of power).
"which is an odd way of describing a culture that punishes abuse of power"
The guy wasn't abusing his power. He was being a fucking weirdo, after rejecting her for a job. So that power dynamic was over. Now he's being very unprofessional, weird, creepy, and a whole bunch of other things.
Also outrage culture, we're talking about a culture where someone got fired for making jokes about "forking" another guys repo and big dongles in a private conversation. Then the person who got him fired then got fired for having her companies web site DDoS'd off the internet. That's just one of many not quite right things that's happened in our culture.
People keep saying that there's no power dynamic because she already got rejected. I don't get it. Interview decisions can change. People can interview for a different position at the same company. It's not as straightforward as everybody seems to want it to be.
We are not talking about a culture where someone got fired for "forking" jokes. That may be the culture, but it's completely unrelated to the issue being discussed here.
"People keep saying that there's no power dynamic because she already got rejected. I don't get it. Interview decisions can change. People can interview for a different position at the same company. It's not as straightforward as everybody seems to want it to be."
Very unlikely for a start up that'll you'll interview again for a different position. They would just offer you the other position. Also very unlikely is a rejection turned into acceptance.
"We are not talking about a culture where someone got fired for "forking" jokes. That may be the culture, but it's completely unrelated to the issue being discussed here."
That is exactly what the person was talking about and this thread is very much the same. A bunch of people outraged because they should be.
They don't always hire for everything at once. Why is it so absurd that a startup might hire for a different position a few months down the line? And why is changing a "no" to a "yes" unlikely? Do interviewers never change their mind afterwards?
Personally, I'm not outraged because I "should be." I'm mildly annoyed at the person in question, and I'm outraged at all the people coming out of the woodwork to defend him.
"And why is changing a "no" to a "yes" unlikely? Do interviewers never change their mind afterwards?"
It's not that they never change their minds, it's more that they usually don't. Especially after telling someone officially they're rejected. If a company rejected me then phoned me up two days later saying they changed their minds I wouldn't look too favourably on them.
"I'm mildly annoyed at the person in question, and I'm outraged at all the people coming out of the woodwork to defend him."
Personally I just think he's a weirdo who's clearly not that smart. But I've seen some people call him a "sexual criminal". I'm like WTF! That's a bit extreme. That's the sort of thing the outrage culture is describing.
You seem to be saying that changing the interview result isn't worth considering because it's not normal and would cause you to think poorly of the company, yet this whole discussion is about asking an interviewee on a date which is also not normal and causes me to think poorly of the company.
It has nothing to do with normality, just potential.
I haven't seen "sexual criminal" but rest assured that I'd object as strongly to that as I object to all the people defending this guy.
What if he's a 0.5x engineer and firing him would be good anyway? I was merely illustrating that just because someone acts in an outrageous way doesn't make them a liability, net. There's no rule saying effective companies must be filled with saints, even if that would be nice.
I've been around long enough to see what a toxic superstar can do. It's really easy to look at the "superstar" and see it as an asset, but forget how much liability to associate with the toxic - and therefore to conclude "net win" when it isn't.
Not saying it could never happen, but it tends to leave your company a prisoner. You can't lose the superstar, but you can't attract other top-level talent because the superstar is toxic, which leaves you even more dependent on the superstar...
You implied that if he's really good at his job then he must necessarily be a very valuable asset. My point is that he could easily be a liability even if he's excellent at his job, and not because of "outrage culture."
I don't give a fuck if he's a 10,000x engineer or a 10e100x engineer. If his idiocy destroys his company, then it doesn't matter. Any number multiplied by zero is zero.
Your comment sounds good but that's it. It's flawed. You don't hire 10x just people who make other people 10x? Then that person you just hired is 10x.
The person is clearly a liability, it's still possible he's an asset. In simple business terms you have a guy who'll get you sued for 1 million but will make you 10 million. That person while a douche is still a valuable asset. Chances of that ever being the case or anyone ever choosing to keep a known douche about is another thing.
> You don't hire 10x just people who make other people 10x? Then that person you just hired is 10x.
The point was more that I value a person's ability to lift those around them much higher than their abilities to outperform them. It's hard to scale one person. But one person who can help scale an entire team is infinitely more valuable.
> In simple business terms you have a guy who'll get you sued for 1 million but will make you 10 million.
He's not a liability because of potential lawsuits. He's a liability because he brings the team down (antics like this do have a huge impact on the rest of the team).
> The point was more that I value a person's ability to lift those around them much higher than their abilities to outperform them. It's hard to scale one person. But one person who can help scale an entire team is infinitely more valuable.
It seems like while trying to dislike 10x you fundamentally want 10x. All those things are in my opinion what 10x is, they bring 10x more value to the team. Some may be 10x because they literally code faster and better, or they could be 10x because their code helps other people also code faster (I suspect the two are pretty well linked), or they could just be the leader who gives them more confidence to do stuff, etc.
10x may or may not be a myth. I don't think it is, I just don't think it's someone who codes 10x faster than everyone else. I think they just make the entire team better. I also think someone who is 10x one place isn't always going to be 10x in another team due to team dynamics. I.E. the team also makes them better.
> He's a liability because he brings the team down (antics like this do have a huge impact on the rest of the team).
While I get what you mean, I don't see how the team fits in to this. It's not like it was at a team event, team were involved. They most likely will never know this happened. This could just literally be a once off weird thing the guy does while being a cool guy just as much as it could be that he's an around weirdo who does weird things and is constantly belittling people.
From what I've heard, most companies will do the explicit math and decide whether to keep him or not.
It's not unheard off.
Personal Anecdote:
I've known a friend, who keeps the most obnoxious programmer around at his company because he wrote the core money making algorithm by himself and is the only one who understands it. The ceo actively protects other employees from this programmer, but won't fire him because they need him more than anyone else at the company.
If I had a programmer who refused to document the company's core money-making algorithm, that programmer would be out the door by 5pm, and I'd hire a sensible, smart programmer to reverse engineer, rewrite, and document it. No one in tech is that special.
You can write documentation on something and still have it be very hard to understand to the point where other developers can't understand.
Say it's a start up in the first two years of doing business. You're going to rewrite a stable money making functionality just because one guy wouldn't document the code? That's just plain stupid.
Also a smart programmer wouldn't have to reverse engineer the code, THEY GOT THE CODE. Also who says you're going to find a smart programmer? You've burnt your bridge before you've crossed it.
Some people are that special as shown by multiple companies doing this in multiple sectors. Life isn't fair, it doesn't work the way you think it should, it just keeps on rolling with people generally taking the safest option for them to succeed.
No attempt has been made to bring someone else in (either internally or a new hire) to understand the algorithm and the code behind it? Even if this guy is obnoxious, it's smart to have a back up plan in case he leaves.
From what I've seen, people in that position almost never leave.
It seems like for those folks, the most important thing is to be irreplacable. They like being needed, they like being a key person in the operation, more than they like money or doing a good job.
Even so, what if the obnoxious programmer gets hit by a bus? What if a critical production issue crops up just after he gets ill and takes PTO/sick leave for several days?
Oh yes, I think it's a terrible place for the business to find themselves. It just seems like getting hit by a bus is the only way they leave the organization--they'll even stay through retirement!
Anyone who wants to own some part of the business that thoroughly is a liability.
It's an expression from the days when "the contacts app" wasn't a thing. Like the save icon floppy disk, expressions tend to last beyond societal changes that make them meaningless.
He wasted the time of a potential employee, and made her feel very uncomfortable with unprofessional behavior. Plus, he admitted that what he was doing was wrong - presumably against company policy, as well as in general being a shitty thing to do.
From a pure "what's good for the company" consideration alone, at the very least someone from HR needs to have another talk to him about what's acceptable or not - he could be driving away other potential employees, and setting the company up for lawsuits.
What's wrong with what he suggested? The only active measure he proposed is telling the guy's bosses. Surely that's appropriate for a mistake. The rest is just stuff to keep in mind in the event that it turns out not to be a mistake.
I'll take the risk of being buried along with beenpoor, but I should point out that asking someone out once is not harassment. Harassment is asking them out repeatedly after being turned down (i.e. it is known to be unwelcome).
Not making any excuses for what interviewer guy did at all, that was still pretty slimy.
Of course not. If the way you ask people out on dates involves overt sexual advances, that's definitely not an appropriate way to do it in the workplace.
It's making an advance for the eventual goal of sex. How is that not a sexual advance? How is an email chain between interviewee and interviewer, discussing your interview results, not a professional setting?
People go to GREAT lengths for the "eventual goal of sex" all the time without it being labeled a sexual advance, including striking up what may seem like friendly conversation even though you may never have the slightest idea that their end game was actually to screw you (among many other things). Arguably the majority of anything that people do is for the eventual goal of sex.
The e-mail "later that evening" was not discussing the interview results. It was a later email, presumably on his own.
@pyrocat - You are making assumptions here that there was any quid pro quo involved. She was already rejected for the job. And then she was asked on a date. What was unethical and unprofessional was that he did it while being in a position of an interviewer.
You know, I'm all about being laid back and rejecting traditional corporate culture, because you can be serious without a suit. But you still need the "be serious" part, which somehow got lost between all the ping pong tables and beer on tap. I actually think a big chunk of the industry encourages unprofessionalism, because professionals do really obnoxious things like negotiate compensation. I really hope that the tech scene can hold on to the fun parts of what makes it special, while getting rid of terrible things like this. But, in my opinion, culture and professionalism starts at the top, even if it's easy to go after the low-status, low-political-power programmers at the bottom. The typical company will give you sexual harassment training and fire people who do inappropriate things, but the same companies encourage their 20-somethings to get wasted at Friday happy hours and have few to no women on their board of directors or executive management positions, and that culture of men-in-charge inevitably trickles down.
Surely we can find a middle ground between ping pong and unzipped trousers. The boundaries are just not that complicated.
I'm all for encouraging women in tech and executive positions, but we shouldn't need women to tell us this is wrong or to police our behavior.
I hope none of that sounds too much like disagreement. I think we're mostly in alignment, except perhaps the suggestion that with a preponderance of men in executive positions and on boards this kind of behavior is inevitable. I have to believe that men can do better on their own if they want to, however much the help from women is welcome.
I applaud your point that harassment is largely a clear violation of norms, not a gradation on a spectrum of relaxed behavior.
May I respectfully take issue though with the turn of phrase "we shouldn't need women to tell us"? Does that wording illustrate a problem by assuming that women are outsiders?
I write "illustrate" because I doubt that you really make that assumption. I don't really mean to single you out. I just felt that this language throws light on one of the problems facing women in our computing workplaces.
The problem is that sacrificing the optics of "professionalism" is a dual edged sword.
The norms of professionalism are rightly considered arbitrary, but which norms are considered "professionalism" and which are "things people don't do" is not a universal constant.
I really hope that the tech scene can hold on to the fun parts of what makes it special, while getting rid of terrible things like this.
How do we as people, teams, businesses, industries, etc decide which norms of "professionalism" are OK to break. The interviewer asking for a date is pretty obvious to almost all of us (except that interviewer apparently), but how do we navigate the more middle ground? One person's "fun part" is another person's reason to feel excluded.
Alcohol at the office Friday afternoon is traditionally unprofessional but norms in tech mean it's largely accepted here, but your post takes issue with it.
It's gonna be a little bit ugly, especially in a culture that's tightly wound about policing eachother's behaviors. OR It's going to be a slightly more agreeable set of arbitrary norms.
> I actually think a big chunk of the industry encourages unprofessionalism, because professionals do really obnoxious things like negotiate compensation.
I don't approve of this situation, but I also don't buy your general argument (especially for things like ping pong tables and beer on tap). You seem to be referring to "professionalism" as some concrete normative standard, but in reality, what is considered "professionalism" changes over time and differs between people, industries, and geographic regions at any given time.
You are misunderstanding my point. I am fine with ping-pong tables and beer on tap, if they come with professionalism, where professionalism includes things like not sexually harassing women. Alcohol especially needs to be handled with care, and encouraging employees to have more than one drink is downright irresponsible. My point was that there is a contingent of business-types whose gameplan is to use the fun stuff as an excuse to drop professionalism, as in, why should you ask for a raise when you're having so much fun here? It's one big party!
The reason I say this is that I was recently job interviewing and I had one company that acted like this, and even brought me into a Friday happy hour as part of the interview process, where a bunch of young males were playing beer pong. First of all, how is that not a hostile environment for a woman? Secondly, I didn't want to drink, so was I supposed to look like I was no fun or bend my principles? Finally, when I complained to the recruiter, I was told they _only_ did that for engineers, and it was clear to me that it was a general strategy of indoctrination to avoid paying market rate, because it was all fun and games until we started talking compensation. And the company I most recently worked with before was more or less the same, the startup industry is filled with companies exactly like this.
We have a culture of brogrammers because the VCs create it to avoid paying engineers. And if you think programmers are all men, take a look at the VC and senior management gender diversity sometime.
Fair enough, although I think my point about variance in what is considered professionalism is conceptually separate from issues like sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a crime (or tort, depending on severity). Illegal activity is obviously "unprofessional" in the broadest sense (like assaulting or stealing from a coworker or candidate), but I was using "professionalism" to refer specifically to things which are not blatant crimes/torts or even social mistakes in non-professional settings.
Your example of being invited to a bar after an interview is a perfect example. It's right on the edge of what could be considered professional, at least assuming you were in Silicon Valley where such things are presumably somewhat common. Many candidates might find this very appealing, while many might find it extremely off-putting or even hostile. Personally, I would be closer to the off-putting side, although that might not have been true 5 years ago. I'm not a female, but I can certainly imagine it feeling incredibly off-putting or hostile.
I agree there's some grey zone, and I was definitely a young brogrammer who it appealed to, but I'm now seeing the errors of my ways and I hope younger engineers listen to what I'm saying and avoid those cultures.
I think you are missing his or her point a little. They mean that some management explicitly encourage a culture that believes that "free pizza" is worth as much as overtime, or that a ping pong table is worth as much a meaningful equity stake. You couldn't do this to lawyers or accountants or doctors or other "professionals" because they would see through it in a heartbeat.
What the fuck? How does this shit happen? How on earth does someone, male or female, get into such a state that they think it is appropriate to do something like this in a professional setting?
Can someone explain to me how this works? I'm male in a male-dominated industry, and of course I don't give a damn what people look like and treat everyone with respect. The problem is, I don't believe a single one of my male friends (or female friends) would be capable of doing something like this.
Where the hell do these people come from, and how can this be stopped? I hate it when shit like this happens because I worry people will associate this behavior with me.
Go read your local court blotter or something. You would apparently be surprised what actually exists in the world. We don't have laws against this sort of thing because nobody ever does them. We more have laws against this sort of thing because it's perfectly "natural" (as in "the way nature has made us", not "good").
"Where the hell do these people come from, and how can this be stopped?"
Everywhere, and it can't be stopped. Only slowed down, and reparations made and justice done after-the-fact, but stopping it is not on the table. Which is part of why getting too emotional in one instance isn't all that helpful... you literally wouldn't have time to hear about every single problem of this caliber that occurs somewhere in the world because you literally can not take the information in that quickly.
> The problem is, I don't believe a single one of my male friends (or female friends) would be capable of doing something like this.
I know guys who I wouldn't be surprised to see do something like this, mostly from the bar I go to. I have female friends who know lots of guys who would stoop to this. They would not necessarily believe there's a lot wrong with it, and might welcome the advance if they liked the way he looked or acted. This guy did it sight unseen though, I can't see any of my friends going for that.
There's a pervasive element in society of success in dating requiring playing a numbers game, on both sides of the gender fence. My female friends all expect me to be asking out any girl I think is attractive. Being asked out is something that just happens all the time for them, they just seem to get used to it. The context matters mostly as a signal for what it's going to be like to date them.
An attractive female coworker of mine told me about how a lawyer who hires her on the side to help him with document stuff asked her to dinner on a business pretext and at that dinner was feeling her out for willingness to date him. I was surprised that she accepted his invitation and didn't slam him for being a creep for his behavior. She thought it was weird but didn't have a huge reaction or anything, she told me like one might talk about any weird thing that happens to you in the course of a day.
I have one IRL female friend who was a feminist and would definitely see something wrong with this behavior. She's also extremely attractive and describes getting hit on constantly. She definitely does not have a neutral reaction to it. But she also relayed her fear to me that she'll never be able to get married because feminism.
I think you discovered your answer in your last paragraph. The question being: why did your attractive female friend accept the dinner invitation from creepy lawyer guy? Every society has certain expectations of its members, and most current societies think of marriage or relationships as being "the" natural state to be in. i.e. if you're single, you're either a "player" or a "loser", you can't just be...happily single. And from speaking to my female friends, that pressure seems even worse for them.
The result is that most people, men and women, will give a shot at anything that might lead to a relationship.
#DanBC: Even those with other viewpoints, are not defending his behaviour. It is more to do with what next ? This is not a case of harassment as far as I can tell - but unethical and unprofessional behaviour and needs to be condoned for sure. But stretching it to a borderline harassment case is what needs to be avoided (atleast not until full facts are known).
condemned, yes. Not a native english speaker and had to check the dictionary. Looks like I have a feeling I might have used condone in incorrect ways in other times also.
Dating within the tech industry is tough, especially when most of the people you meet are also in tech, but you also don't want to contribute to the problem of creating an environment where women feel like they're constantly being evaluated not only for their skills but also as potential partners.
As a guy, it's probably best to just put the idea out of your mind altogether unless specifically approached. Meeting romantic partners at work is extremely common in other industries, but most of them don't have the same gender imbalance problems that we do in STEM fields. I think it probably sucks for everyone that dating in the tech industry is such a tricky thing, but I think that's probably just a sacrifice we're going to have to make until we've got a better culture and gender balance.
It's definitely not ok to take advantage of the power relationship between interviewer and interviewee in any case.
I don't even think that's a good idea. I don't live in the U.S. or in the western world for that matter but from my reading of all issues in the tech industry from HN it seems to me the best approach is to pretend your a eunuch at work or around your colleagues no matter the location.
I concur. I don't see how there's a way for genders to coexist in the same work space without leaving sexuality completely out the door. Too many opportunities for awkwardness, misunderstanding, legal liability, public shaming, Internet outrage. It's not worth it. Work spaces must be 100% asexual, I don't see how else you'd accomplish this. Open to suggestions.
Yeah, that's definitely a tricky subject without a clear cut answer.
My personal opinion though is that denying agency to a woman (i.e. her right to choose to ask someone out if she wants to) is just as bad, though. It's like saying that women aren't capable of making their own decisions about it.
I mean, the whole end goal of this thing is not to dehumanize everyone and turn us all into code-writing, celibate, emotionless Vulcans, but to create a welcoming environment where currently under-represented groups have the same opportunities and respect as everyone else.
So what are the rules for contacting someone you once interviewed in order to suggest social interaction?
NOTE: I said "social interaction" rather than "a date" because I'm asking about more general situations.
For instance, suppose you interview someone, and (unlike the guy in this incident) are not using the interview to try to find someone to date. You stick to questions specific to the job, plus more general questions about the things on their resume, including open source projects they say they contributed to.
You find them interesting and witty and enjoyed talking with them, but there is someone better qualified who gets the job.
Six months later, you are planning to attend a one day conference on an open source project you contribute to. It's a 3 hour drive to the conference. You don't know anyone in your area who works on that project to ask along to make the drive more interesting.
Then you remember the person you interviewed six months earlier is also a contributor to the project.
Is it acceptable to contact them and tell them you are driving to the conference and would like to find someone to come along to make the ride more social, and asking if they would like to be that person?
No, it's not acceptable. I'm assuming you find the contact info by looking at interview records in the scenario you gave. You can't ever use any privileged information for personal purposes.
Sure, why not? You're not in a professional relationship. You aren't in a position to influence a hiring decision. You're two humans with common interests.
Although this doesn't directly address you, some of the scenarios played out in this post are pretty helpful, and you should at least be aware of them:
There's not gonna be some neat little checklist for you, you have to just develop the ability to reason about social dynamics.
> Is it acceptable to contact them and tell them you are driving to the conference and would like to find someone to come along to make the ride more social, and asking if they would like to be that person?
Based on exactly how your question is worded, no. I think most people would feel uncomfortable with a relative stranger reaching out to them specifically and asking to carpool.
You have to consider the dynamics of the situation too: What are the ages of the people involved? What are the genders? What are their roles in the community, etc. These factors can make it anything from a friendly, but still not terribly appropriate request to downright creepy and possibly exploitative.
You brought up time, which is another dynamic to consider as well. I'm sure if we thought hard, we could come up with some nice rule of thumb like "if you're going to do this at all, it should be at least X weeks/months/etc later" - but really it's more about whether everyone can actually move on and what the new social dynamics are. If by this point the other party is well established in another company, not looking for a job, etc - it's much easier to put the whole interview behind everyone involved.
If you're both contributors to a project, why have you not interacted already? Have you been reading their social cues?
Some people are very open to meeting new people. If you interview someone and you genuinely find them interesting - see if they have a blog or twitter or something. See how they interact with people there. After considering the other factors, IF you decide to engage them, do it some place they are obviously comfortable and giving off cues that they want to interact.
Presumably there is some mailing list or discussion area for the project, see if they are open to interacting there.
You also need to be really honest and examine your own motivations and make sure you act accordingly and are not deceptive about it either to yourself or others.
If you're really interested in just making the trip less lonely, why not put out a general call? "Hey I'm headed to X conference, anyone want to carpool?" You might get some replies from people you're not interested in riding with for whatever reason, in which case you'll just have to deal with it in an appropriate way. Either tolerate them, or come up with some excuse to exclude that person politely ("oh, I think all the spots are accounted for, but I'll keep you in mind").
You'll have to accept that in a lot of cases, the fact that you had a failed business relationship with a person will preclude you having a personal relationship with them.
I doubt this is a company-wide problem. I think this is an employee with a serious inability to appreciate boundaries, and he should be removed from his position of responsibility.
Small company, he's a programmer - primary interviewer is busy (something came up) - asks another technical person to cover for him. Happens all the time in startups / small companies.
Question isn't if it happens all the time in small companies. What's under discussion is whether this is what we want in our (the startup/tech) industry, whether this is ok, or if there's something we should try to do about it.
First step is awareness, then next step is recognizing there's a problem. Your comment stops at the first step.
I was pointing out that the fact that this guy was conducting interviews was understandable in the context of a small company - I have picked up interviews for team members before when they were unable to make them.
I meant no implication about it being acceptable in small companies - it is unacceptable everywhere.
Having a pretty tough time understanding this comment... Are you saying that having someone fill in for an interviewer is a huge problem that we should "all try to do something about"?
Small company, he's a programmer - primary interviewer is in a relationship (last candidate said 'yes') - asks another technical interviewer if he's interested in this candidate's headshot. Happens all the time in startups / small companies.
I have never worked in a company, large or small, where my coworkers behaved in this manner. Meanwhile, I have worked in numerous companies where a colleague was not able to make a scheduled interview and asked me to stand in for them instead.
I'm not discounting the possibility of your guess, but I have never experienced it personally, and I would have a major issue working with anyone who behaved in this manner in a professional environment.
I will go out on my limb here. It was a mistake on his part. See if you are willing to let him go with a caution. I know everyone is crying for blood and it is justified. Going to HR will likely ruin his resume for life (possibly).
I think this perspective is at least worth discussing.
On the other hand,
a) He's in his 30's and should know better.
b) He has no rapport with OP and knows basically nothing about her.
c) This is a pattern of behavior that women in the industry have to deal with all the time, not just an isolated incident. (See the comments in the thread.)
When I look at issues like this as a guy, I have to remind myself that "feeling sorry for the perpetrator" is in fact one of the many anti-patterns that leads to this kind of hostile environment in the first place. So I cannot judge the victim for whatever decision she makes.
Were I in her shoes, I would probably send the guy a harshly-worded e-mail instead of escalating to HR. I don't like the idea of someone losing their job over a really dumb decision they made in the heat of the moment. But I am not a woman and I haven't had to go through life getting worn down by dozens of incidents like this one, so my perspective here is kind of meaningless.
No. Just no. I don't think one mistake like this should ruin someones career but it's pretty impossible for this to be a mistake. He even admits in his email that he shouldn't be doing this. If you are senior enough to interview to be interviewing people you should know how unacceptable it is to engage in that kind of sophomoric bullshit.
It's really nice to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the girl was just so perfect he could't help himself and it was a one time thing. I don't know but honestly you really need to consider the converse. What if this isn't a one time thing. What if this is the way he acts whenever he interviews a woman. This absolutely needs to go to the proper persons (eg HR, CEO/CTO since they might not have hr) who can handle the situation.
I tend to agree with you. My viewpoint is I am assuming this is a one time thing and there was/is no precedence. But this can only be confirmed by talking to HR. So yes, she needs to talk to HR.
HR exists for addressing problems like this. You absolutely should talk to them. I don't think it will "ruin his life" but whatever action is taken (if any) is ultimately up to his bosses. This is unacceptable behavior and if no one ever says anything about it, there's no reason to think it won't continue.
> Letting HR know about the incident will likely cause this person to be terminated.
HR doesn't generally have the ability to decide to fire people. So if this person's bosses, in consultation with HR, think this is worth terminating someone over, that's certainly their right.
I don't want to parse words with you, but this is wildly inappropriate behavior and it certainly should not be ignored. HR is the correct department to make sure it gets addressed.
And, frankly, some companies may believe that "creepy" and "mean" behavior on its own is a serious offense even if, as you assert, no abuse or harassment occurred.
After some thought, I agree HR should be involved to caution him. As for ruining his life, it feels like a stretch - but imagine, he is publicly outed (with this much attention, it's possible). People have their pitchforks out - so I know this viewpoint will be downvoted. But it is best if she brings this issue with HR and deal with it internally with the company.
Just because people disagree still doesn't mean it's harassment.
Also, nearly this entire post's comments are debate. There are people on both sides. This issue is not black and white, anything but. If you read some other comments, you will see it's not so "overwhelming." A majority, yes. Overwhelming, no.
When you admit, in the act of typing out an email, that you're doing a bad thing which you should not be doing, and then you go ahead and hit 'send' on that email anyways, it becomes more than just a 'mistake' and turns into 'willful malicious action'.
I would report it to their superior, or the CEO if they are the head of HR. Particularly since it sounds like he may not have provided you a fair interview.
Equality doesn't happen if people are silent about injustices.
I don't see the drama, but then again I'm a guy (40+).
If he just waited a few weeks with that second mail, we could hardly fault him for being unprofessional could we?
I don't believe she would have gotten then job with another interviewer (the "more experience" part sounds plausible).
And if she was a really interesting candidate, another tech screen or phone interview would be natural.
I'd tell any friend to say "thanks, but no thanks" and move on.
(If he's that creepy, he'd get her the job and hit on her then)
>I don't believe she would have gotten then job with another interviewer (the "more experience" part sounds plausible).
please don't speculate, as she said if they were looking for "more experience" why would he interviewed her in the first place? He also admitted that her cv was interesting
>(If he's that creepy, he'd get her the job and hit on her then)
hitting on a co-worker is much more complicated than hitting on someone outside the company. that's the point.
He is clearly abusing his position of power, it's not ethical and probably also against the company's policy.
You're speculating in the same breath with which you say not to speculate. We don't know why they interviewed her, and frankly we interview people fairly often that don't have the requisite experience on paper because we know it often has little to do with what's on the paper, a lesson HN readers are VERY familiar with (the whole "meritocracy" thing).
> A few minutes later he sent me an email saying he'd spoken to his team and they were looking for someone with a lot more experience
It was a team decision, and while the quote is not final, points more to the fact that he _isn't_ able to just unanimously reverse the decision. At that point, the entire team would have to be colluding.
I've read the post, except the screening interview (that went well, otherwise she wouldn't be there) the only direct interaction she had was with this (creepy) guy so they rely on him for the final decision.
That's sort of the Catch-22. A guy simply can't ask a girl he likes out. A girl who's unqualified feels slighted because a guy is interested in her. What has this world come to?
> (If he's that creepy, he'd get her the job and hit on her then)
This may not be creepy so much as the optimal strategy for avoiding internet outrage if she rejects your advances... Does everyone here seriously have no idea how much office hooking up goes on in the world, or is it only okay if the date is asked for after work hours on the elevator?
Here's a scenario: you and your coworker end up at a bar together, maybe for a team event or something. There's alcohol involved. Nobody got coerced into being there. You're not her superior. Can one of the two people hit on the other in that context?
What's wrong is, after it's clear the advances are unwanted (a single but firm "no" is sufficient), continuing to make them. What's also wrong, though a lesser wrong since the signal can be missed, is the initial hitting on someone who has already signaled they don't want to be hit on. Wedding bands once served as a great social signal for this, "Don't hit on someone with a wedding band" is a simple rule to observe and follow, but marriage is dead, so it's not as useful. "Don't hit on co-workers" is also a simple rule to observe and follow, but come on. Enforcing that would eliminate a lot of happiness couples derive from such relationships, whereas enforcing the wedding band rule when marriage meant something wouldn't.
Because there's more at stake here than just "some guy who admitted he was wrong." People are jumping on this as yet another example of how horribly "male" the entire industry, how hostile it is to females, etc.
yet another example of how horribly "male" the entire industry, how hostile it is to females, etc.
Yes it is, exactly. And the grandparent comment is yet another example how people will contort any way they can to give men behaving in unacceptable ways towards women the most charitable possible interpretation.
If this was my daughter I'd tell her that he's an socially inept idiot she should avoid. He is not the "industry" and probably not even representative of his company.
If he pulled a stunt like this at a later stage (ie. under negotiations) I'd tell her to call a lawyer!
* Decline the job for reasons that you explain to the HR department: He asked you out on a date in a professional setting (I must inform you .... I regret ... best regards). Writing this in a friendly form (the HR person receiving this mail has not asked you for a date). This person will be up in arms for you. You will receive a very very friendly call from someone up the foodchain.
See, it happened in person .. so you cant prove shit. But if you are a boss.
* Do not send the mail CC to the interviewer
* Close the mail friendly with best regards
* Document what you can. I guess the interviewer did not do this in written form.
* Go on and strike this company off the list of companies that you aspire to work for. Do not believe this was an single incident. When hiring people everything should be extra shiny (normally you discover problems after starting).
So with 15 years experience in the field: that shop is crap!
One thing: The tech job market is a sellers market. More people want to hire than there are able engineers. You are not the one asking for something only. The company is as well. A work relationship must be on the basis of a mutual understanding what is ok and what not. Seems you have a difference here.
Good luck for the job hunt. The good companies are out there (and many people who can show you the way for harassment free work experiences).
The poster should forward that email to whoever else at the company can deal with it so that hopefully someone else doesn't have to deal with it in the future.
As far as I can tell, the offence here is that he used privileged information (contact details from her job application) to contact her about a personal matter (the date).
Once her application was rejected there ceased to be a meaningful power relationship. Some people seem to be implying that there remains a professional power relationship since she may choose to apply at the company in the future, but I doubt that has any practical or legal teeth. The same could be true of all her potential future employers OR her future employees, vendors, customers, etc...
So what he did was creepy and unprofessional, yes. But let's understand why and to exactly what degree before deciding what the appropriate response should be.
Personally, I would contact the HR department and inform them that I didn't appreciate company employees using the contact details from my application to solicit me for a date.
I'd also add it's possible some of these men are desperate for a date, given how hard it to get one in some areas of the country that are heavy in tech. He knows he shouldn't, but he's desperate.
This is why gender imbalance is bad for everyone involved. Not saying there should be more women in tech so men can find dates. The point is being around more women at work will help people learn what is socially appropriate.
Since OP mentioned that the company in question is a startup which implies a fair chance that they not yet have a HR department or that even some of the founders took part in this sexist behavior, IMHO OP should not hesitate to call out names (only the company's) as it seems it is the only way to punish this behavior.
I'm saying the behavior would no longer be considered inappropriate if there was mutual attraction. I sincerely believe this will still be the case even if the genders are flipped.
OK, I was willing to at least entertain your comment until that last sentence there. As a bona-fide MAN on HN, the anecdote reads as extremely slimy to me. And it's pretty clear that women have to deal with this kind of BS constantly.
His phrasing definitely can be improved. But a lot of people in the reddit thread are incorrect. There is a difference between what is illegal and what is slimy. What the interviewer did is inappropriate but there is no proof that discrimination occurred.
I think it's unethical to hit on co-workers, direct reports and especially interviewees, but there are two people on my team who met their spouses during an interview at previous companies.
Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. The people asking her to lawyer up do not understand employment law. Unethical behavior doesn't automatically mean it's illegal. The definition for discrimination is pretty strict. Unless you can prove the interviewer has a pattern of rejecting female candidates and then asking them for dates then there is no case here.
The other point I wanted to make is there are people who date their interviewers. Does that mean it's not sketchy? No. But the success stories serve as encouragement for this kind of behavior.
Not trying to cause a stir, but where does it say he pressured her? I read it as "he asked me out on a date," not "he told me if I didn't go on a date with him he wouldn't hire me and he'd kill my firstborn."
She had already not gotten the job. Not saying this is ok, but it doesn't sound like much pressure was applied.
That's part of the point. If it were okay to ask a job candidate out after an interview, the incentive for an unscrupulous interviewer who encounters an attractive candidate is to scuttle the interview so he can ask the candidate out later on.
That's just part of why this behavior is so highly objectionable.
So, hypothetically, if we were to believe in fate and love at first sight (humor me here), your suggestion is that an interviewer that has passed on a candidate through a rigorous interview process with multiple interviewers where everyone said no for the same (or different) valid reasons... Simply accept the fact that he will never be able to date his "one and only?" That he won't ever even be able to see "what could have been?" That seems awfully unhuman; to deny yourself and another human the possibility of a potentially blissful relationship, solely because "we once met in a professional setting" seems, frankly, dumb.
Now, if he were the sole interviewer, or if he cut the interview short, or if he asked her DURING the interview, this would be a different conversation. But we don't know that.
Not every situation is the same, and it should not /always/ be "totally unacceptable" to ask someone out on a date. If they say no, and you pressure them, that's a different story.
Sometime you have to apply reason to a situation and understand the facts before casting judgment and making blanket statements. I have no reason to say that what this person did is acceptable; for all I know he WAS the only interviewer, and he did pressure her. But that's just it - we /don't/ know, and you cannot cast judgment to say that this is unacceptable as a result, without knowing more about the intricacies of the situation.
Generalizations like this are how we get into trouble in the first place.
Hypothetically, if we were to believe in fate and love at first sight, the odds of any given person encountering his soulmate in a world of 7+ billion people are so minuscule as to be ignorable.
More than the power dynamic, I think the stronger argument here is privacy. If you submit your information to a company to apply for a job, it's with the assumption that this information will only be used to evaluate and possibly hire you. Imagine if you submitted your resume somewhere, and they started sending you advertisements in the mail. You'd be outraged! Well, this is the same sort of thing. She gave this company her contact info so they could evaluate and possibly hire her, and here's a company insider using that information to contact her for a completely unrelated purpose. Spam, with unpleasant overtones of power.
If it were okay to ask a job candidate out after an interview, the incentive for an unscrupulous interviewer who encounters an attractive candidate is to scuttle the interview so he can ask the candidate out later on.
You haven't engaged that statement at all so I wonder why you responded to me.
My point was that if everyone else is positive on the interviewee, it should be very hard for the single interviewer to 'scuttle' the interview. And if everyone else is negative on the candidate, this is irrelevant.
It's implicit in the very fact of asking in that situation. Your response, and the neighboring one from ddoolin, is the equivalent of "I wasn't threatening her, I just always hold a knife in my hand like that."
The proper thing to do here if you really wanted to ask her out on a date is not to do it. There's plenty of other women out there you can meet in a more appropriate setting. There is no acceptable reason to turn a job interview into a date request.
Given that she was already turned down for the job, I see this more as an absurd lack of professional propriety than an abuse of power. It would also be extremely inappropriate for a candidate to ask an interviewer out on a date.
Of course, if the job rejection is in any way related to the subsequent date-asking (or anything other than her alleged lack of experience), then the situation is different (and even more messed up).
Explain it? Sure. There's always subtexts in human interactions. Pressure doesn't have to be explicit. When a policeman tells you to pull over, there's an implied "or you'll be arrested" that we all understand even though he never comes out and says so. When your crappy boss asks you to come work overtime on the weekend without any additional pay, there's an implied "or I'll make your life at this company difficult, or maybe just fire you" that he usually doesn't need to state.
Your crappy boss might not mean it that way. He might be asking with absolutely pure intent, with the idea that you'll say no if you don't want to come in, and you'd work extra because you like it, or believe in the company, or whatever. But it doesn't matter, the implication is still there, because of the power he holds.
Now, you get rejected from an interview. Shortly after, the interviewer asks you for a favor. There is an implied "if you do this for me, I might reconsider the rejection." Again, he might not mean it, but it's still there, because he has that power. Or at least you have good reason to think he has that power.
Is this claim falsifiable? Beats me. Ask a sociologist if you want to get scientific about it.
> When a policeman tells you to pull over, there's an implied "or you'll be arrested" that we all understand even though he never comes out and says so. When your crappy boss asks you to come work overtime on the weekend without any additional pay, there's an implied "or I'll make your life at this company difficult, or maybe just fire you" that he usually doesn't need to state.
Both are those claims are simple to explain. Policemen clearly do arrest people if they don't pull over, and bosses clearly do penalize or fire people for not following orders (even unreasonable orders). And intention doesn't really come into play for either of those examples, because it's clear that both policemen and bosses intend to be issuing threats.
You haven't given any similar explanation for why asking someone on a date after interviewing and rejecting them carries the same implication. (For clarity, note that I don't approve of doing so, but for a different reason.)
You're saying the other examples are clear because people actually do these things, but the date example isn't clear because men don't retaliate against women who refuse a request for a date?
I'm not sure what I can tell you besides, yes, yes they do, all the time.
> You're saying the other examples are clear because people actually do these things, but the date example isn't clear because men don't retaliate against women who refuse a request for a date?
I'm not saying that men don't regularly do that. I'm saying I have absolutely zero evidence of men doing that. It might happen, but right now I am much more sure that policemen arrest people for refusing to pull over nearly 100% of the time than I am that male employers retaliate against women employees/candidates who refuse a date.
Again, I'm not sure what to tell you besides yes, this happens, all the time. Maybe ask some of the women in your life how careful they have to be when turning down men who ask them out. Maybe google "fired for rejecting a date" (but beware, there's a lot of noise in the results). Women (and men) absolutely suffer retaliation in the workplace for rejecting advances.
My point is that the claim that policemen routinely arrest people who refuse to pull over is far less uncertain or controversial than the claim that male employers routinely ask women on dates and make their employment contingent on their response.
I don't see anything uncertain or controversial about it. You appear to disagree, but I have a hard time seeing why. I gave you a couple of places where you might find the stuff I'm talking about.
Anyway, she was already told she wouldn't be hired there. The OP also doesn't mention that it was an exchange of favors (i.e. Go on a date with me and I'll get you this job).
You've just misused the no true scotsman fallacy. The no true scotsman fallacy is when someone attempts to apply an unreasonable/unlikely interpretation to a previous claim when presented with a counterexample to the reasonable interpretation of that claim. It is not simply any claim of the form "all/no members of group X have property Y."
A logical fallacy assumes a logical argument. I was using "real men" as a rhetorical device, echoing OP's use of the term "MAN."
Edit: these downvotes are fascinating. I'm amazed at how many people are apparently upset in the opposite direction from what I'd expect. Are you pissed off that it's inappropriate for an interviewer to ask an interviewee on a date? Are you just pissed off that it's being called out? Do you just disagree with the language being used to call it out? Do tell.
How can he abuse position of power if he asked her out after he turned her down for the job? He does not have a shred of power over her. If it was before he told her she is unsuitable- it is different case.
Sure he does. He could change his recommendation after the fact. Even if he couldn't, and even if he intends no such thing, she has no way to know that, and he should be aware enough of the power dynamic to understand how that impacts his request. It sounds like he was aware, and did it anyway.
In that case, would this have been better had he started it with a "Hey, so I have no method of changing anything at this point with regards to the interview, and wouldn't even do it if I could. But I was wondering..."
Would that have been easier for you to swallow? Because the fact that we, as a people, are so cynical as to assume the worst is, to me, incredibly fucking sad. :(
Note that it has nothing to do with assuming the worst. It's all about potential. For an extreme example, imagine a stranger almost fell off a bridge, and you're pulling them up. If you let go, they will fall to their death.
Is this an appropriate moment to ask them out on a date?
It's obvious to me that the answer is "no." You literally hold the power of life and death over this person. They have no idea what your intentions are. You've put them in a really tough spot and it's completely inappropriate.
Now, this has nothing do with assuming that you'd actually drop this person to their death if they rejected you. It's merely that there is the possibility. You might. Even if the odds are a million to one, put yourself in that person's shoes: would you take that risk? This is a total stranger. You don't know what they're like. It's possible they're a nutcase who freaks out whenever they're rejected. (I'm sure you've met people who do this.) Chances are good that they're a completely normal person... except, of course, that a normal person wouldn't be asking the question in the first place.
Now, the actual interview thing obviously is not on the same scale. There's no life-or-death situation (probably... stalking ending in murder is a real thing, and this guy knows where she lives) and it's fairly safe to say "no." But the potential is still there. We're not assuming the worst, merely acknowledging that the worst is possible, and that alone is enough.
The problem with deducting from one side of a story is you can't reach a definitive conclusion. For example if you read the first 4 paragraph, that is 'the essence' of most interviews. Assuming it is, what the interviewer is doing after, are inappropriate but "thanks, but no thanks" would be adequate response in my opinion. People make dumb mistakes some time.
But if OP highly suspected that the interviewer does not intend to do proper interview from the beginning and only interested to her personally, reporting to HR is the only way to go.
Wasn't there some recent ruling that indicated interns and the like are not protected from sexual harassment because they're not technically employees? I feel like a prospective interviewee would fall under that same umbrella, and hence a legal case would ultimately go nowhere. Not to mention that, as has previously been mentioned on HN, HR is designed to protect the company from you, not the other way around.
I'd bypass the legal system altogether (which increasingly seems designed to protect this kind of atrocious behavior) and go straight to the media with it. Public shaming unfortunately seems to be the only way to combat this.
Unfortunately, I think the best way (safest) to handle this as someone new out of school without a network is to ignore it and move on to other potential opportunities.
Most likely, this is an issue isolated to this one employee, who should have his position of responsibility in the hiring process stripped, written up/ demotion, whatever tools are available to the company to _strongly_ reprimand him.
There is a chance that this person (who has already shown to be outrageously unprofessional) would retaliate. He has your resume which likely significant personal information such as cell phone and address.
If you had a network, the best course of action would be to find someone you trust who is connected to the CEO. Any CEO who is not breeding a malignant culture would be absolutely appalled by this employee's actions. The CEO is fortunate to have a female grad student from a top 3 school applying to work at his/her company. Diversity is incredibly valuable to teams, and hi-jacking the hiring process into a personal dating workflow displays such egregiously bad judgement I would probably be personally offended as the CEO to the point of firing the person.
* Forward copies of emails to the company's leadership/HR department.
* Keep printed copies of the emails handy in case he decides to retaliate with lawyers.
* Keep your own legal counsel on speed-dial.
* Move on with your life.
There's not much you can do from a legal standpoint, with regards to grievance/redress. Escalating the situation through contacting his boss/HR carries a risk, even though you have the moral high-ground, but it could work in getting him punished. Or it could achieve absolutely nothing.
Or he has a long history of this abusive behavior and this is the last straw that will get him ejected from the company for being a serious liability/generally unpleasant.
He has your resume, and he's exhibited awful behavior -- legal counsel should definitely be at your disposal on a moments notice.
Naturally, if it really interests you, you can consult a lawyer to verify whether there are any punitive measures you can apply against him. The OP hasn't indicated that the guy has harassed her per se, so I don't know if she has any legal standing regarding that.