Rejected for not matching belt and shoes: HR reveals 5 absurd reasons managers reject great candidates nowadays

Sometimes, it’s not a lack of talent that keeps people out of jobs, but a mismatched belt or the wrong pen. A Reddit post has pulled back the curtain on the hiring mess in the difficult job market, revealing what many job seekers suspect but rarely see confirmed: hiring decisions derailed by trivial, even bizarre, judgments.

The post, shared by a self-identified HR professional, lists a series of “ridiculous reasons” their manager used to reject otherwise strong candidates, despite CVs that, in the poster’s words, were “better than half the employees already working here.”

Flexible hours, early arrival, and other ‘red flags’

Among the rejections described:

• A woman asking about flexible working hours was labeled as someone who “won’t be truly committed to the job.”
• A candidate who paused briefly before answering a tough question was dismissed for allegedly “lacking self-confidence.”
• One man arrived 10 minutes early, not the “customary” 15, and was deemed “overly anxious” with poor time management.
• Another was rejected because his belt colour didn’t perfectly match his shoes, a sign he supposedly “doesn’t pay attention to details.”
• A woman who brought her own notebook and pen was criticized for appearing to “not trust the resources we give.”

The irony, the poster noted, is hard to miss: “It’s fine, let’s focus on what pen they brought instead of seeing if they can do the job.”

The post drew thousands of upvotes and sparked a flood of comments from recruiters, employees, and jobseekers who said the story felt uncomfortably familiar.

Also Read: Landed a $7,000-a-year pay hike, then called for an exit interview: A minimum-wage worker explains why she won’t be honest on way out

‘One bad actor can ruin the entire process’

One recruiter summed up the problem bluntly: “If you have one asshole in the process, the rest of the process gets f***ed up.”

They added that many hiring managers overestimate superficial signals and eliminate candidates for reasons that have little to do with actual performance. “I don’t even eliminate candidates for 90% of the things recruiters eliminate them for,” the commenter wrote, pointing out that even typos are often treated as deal-breakers.

Another user shared how a founder insisted on rejecting every candidate without being able to explain why, until the team was overwhelmed and recruiters were blamed for “not doing their job.”

The discussion ultimately circles back to a broader frustration in today’s job market: when nitpicking replaces evaluating real skills, everyone loses, especially qualified candidates who never get a fair chance. The unanswered question remains: how many capable people are filtered out every day for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job?