Hiring often feels like a normal conversation. A manager meets a candidate, asks a few questions, and tries to judge if the person will “fit”. In many Australian workplaces, the most influential moment is not the formal interview. It is the casual chat before or after it. In 2025, that relaxed approach creates serious legal risk. Informal comments, quick notes, and unstructured decisions can become evidence in discrimination claims.
The danger is not always obvious in the moment. A question can sound friendly, yet still be risky. “Do you have kids?” “Are you planning to start a family?” “How old are you?” “Where are you originally from?” “Do you have any health issues that might affect the role?” These questions may be asked without bad intent, but they can suggest bias. If a candidate later believes they were rejected for a protected reason, these questions become a key part of the story.
Many employers also rely on “culture fit” as a deciding factor. The problem is that culture fit is often vague. It can hide unconscious bias, even when the business believes it is being fair. When a company cannot explain a rejection clearly, the risk rises. In a dispute, vague reasons look suspicious, especially when a candidate’s resume shows they met the core requirements.
This is where recruitment services can create a false sense of safety. An agency may screen candidates and coordinate interviews, but it does not remove the employer’s legal responsibility. If the hiring manager asks risky questions or makes biased notes, the business still owns the outcome.
Handwritten notes are another major issue. Many managers still write quick comments on resumes or interview sheets. They might write “too old”, “not confident”, “strong accent”, “not a team vibe”, or “would not suit our culture”. Even if these notes were never meant to be shared, they can be discoverable in legal processes. In other words, the notes can be requested and used in court. Once that happens, the business must explain what those words meant and why they were relevant to the job.
Digital notes are not safer. Comments in email threads, chat tools, and applicant tracking systems can also be accessed. One careless sentence can undermine a defence. The risk is higher when there is no structured scoring system and no consistent hiring record.
AI recruitment tools introduce a different danger. Some businesses use automated resume screening, automated shortlisting, or tools that rank candidates. These systems can replicate bias without anyone noticing. If a tool screens out candidates unfairly and the business cannot show strong human oversight, the organisation remains accountable. Using technology does not remove responsibility. It can increase it.
Employers should adopt defensible documentation practices. Each decision should link to job-based criteria: specific skills, relevant experience, assessment results, and measured performance during the interview. A simple scoring sheet helps. If every candidate is asked the same set of questions and scored against the same standards, the process becomes far more defensible.
Businesses that use recruitment services should also set clear rules for interviews. Provide approved questions. Ban personal questions. Train managers to write professional notes that focus on role requirements. If a manager cannot explain a concern in job-related terms, it should not be written down.
Candidate communication matters too. “Ghosting” creates frustration, and frustrated candidates are more likely to complain. Clear, respectful rejection messages reduce tension and show professional process.
Even strong processes cannot remove all risk. That is why Employment Practices Liability (EPL) insurance is important. EPL insurance helps cover legal defence costs and settlement costs when claims arise. It becomes a safety net when a hiring process is challenged, even if the business believes it acted fairly.
A disciplined employer treats hiring as a structured business process, not a casual conversation. With clear interview standards, careful documentation, human oversight of tools, and support that includes recruitment services and EPL protection, businesses reduce the chance that informal notes become expensive legal evidence.