Person doing the hiring(formerly as a manager,now as an owner) here: At least in my legislation I literally can’t without facing a legal risk that is beyond worth taking. Which sucks big time.

In my last job where I was responsible for hiring people there was a strict “do not reply to people asking why if they ask you by mail and use one of these four sentences when they call you - or get fired” policy after people used these explanations to sue multiple times. The company won every time,but these kind of lawsuits are fucking expensive and time consuming.

And there are a shitton of people trying to gain a reason to sue,sadly. I had people apply to jobs they didn’t even have the legal requirements to work in (think as in “Neurosurgeon needed!” and your untrained custodian applies) and they then tried to frame you that they weren’t hired because of a protected class attribute.

Tbh, I only circumvented that rule once, when a very young candidate for a prestigious trainee position got the best score in our assessment centre we ever had. Only to be bested by two other candidates a day later. And I only had two spots. So…I made sure they knew that and made them reapply for the next scheduled opening and “parked” them at a partner company in the meantime so they were cared for financially (allowed them to even make a little “extra” as the traineeship didn’t pay that well in the beginning).

It’s a totally fucked up situation where a few grifters ruin it for everybody and (and this is as bad) also give equal opportunity laws a reason. We need changes in legislation that allow giving people useful reasons why they weren’t hired without risking lawsuits.