Is whole milk okay?
This month’s biggest internet debate asks whether bringing an iced coffee to an interview is unprofessional.
Corporate recruiter Caitlin Wehniainen thinks so. In a one-minute viral TikTok, she opines that bringing an iced coffee to a job interview is perceived as casual and makes it look like the interview is just “a stop on your list of errands for the day.”
Her point is that interviews are about making good first impressions, and adding an iced coffee to the mix gives the interviewer something to analyze beyond the interviewee’s skill set. Maybe the interviewer sees iced coffee as informal. Maybe they’re offended by the condensation ring on the table. Or maybe, on the other hand, the interviewer loves vanilla oat milk lattes and hires you on the spot. Either way, when interviews are about perception, bringing a seven-dollar beverage of your choice just gives an employer another thing to consider.
From a legal standpoint, an employer could technically deny a candidate a job for bringing an iced coffee to an interview. Iced-coffee drinkers are not a protected class.
Federal law prohibits employers from making hiring decisions based on certain protected characteristics, including race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), national origin, disability (physical or mental), age (40 or older), and genetic information. Certain states add additional protected characteristics under state law. For example, Michigan includes height and weight.
An employer who decides not to hire a candidate over a strawberry matcha should consider two important aspects. First: why? An employer should be prepared to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for declining to hire a candidate. This could be because the applicant was unqualified, unprepared, or, yes, unprofessional. “Candidate brought iced coffee to interview” may work as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason depending on the circumstances. But something more specific, like “candidate appeared unprofessional by arriving late to the interview, wearing a sweatshirt, and drinking a pumpkin spice” is more legally defensible.
The second aspect an employer should consider when declining to hire an applicant is whether the basis for that decision has been applied consistently to all other applicants in the interview process. For example, if an employer rejects a male iced-coffee drinker because bringing an iced coffee was “unprofessional,” but hires a female candidate who also brought an iced coffee, that inconsistency could raise questions about whether the iced coffee was really the basis for the decision. Does the employer have something against male iced-coffee drinkers?
Employers should strive to be objective and consistent during the interview process. Consider asking each candidate the same set of questions focused on the qualifications and requirements of the job. Rubrics work well here: consider using the same template to structure interviews and note each interviewee’s answers alongside other relevant, job-related criteria. For example, if interviewing for a management position, an employer could note each candidate’s prior management experience, number of employees previously supervised, and experience handling performance issues. After the interviews conclude, an employer can use the rubrics to compare the candidates in a more objective way.
And when deciding not to hire a candidate, employers should make sure there is a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason behind the decision – ideally, something more than choice of milk.
Erin Shrum is an associate in the Nashville office of FordHarrison. She focuses her practice on counseling and representing management clients in labor and employment law disputes, helping employers make legally informed decisions through clear communication and practical, business-minded solutions.