Full question: When evaluating job candidates with an unconventional background, eg illnesses, disabilities, convictions, etc., what approaches should I adopt in addition to, or differently from, what's typically used so that I can maximize both fairness as well as my company's interests (US multi state)?

Background: This is for a start-up that I'm building. It can be difficult to compete for talents with more established businesses, so I'd like to be more open-minded, which may turn out to be win-win. At the same time, for the most part this is uncharted territory for me. I'm aware of the potential legal issues and have been careful in that repsect. But I would also like to learn from other folks who have been involved in or have knowledge of similar cases.

Additional background (for the disabilities? case): Let's say an indie start-up needs a more artistic team member (digital audio/visual) to complement existing capabilities. A motivated entry-level applicant has a condition that affects many things being produced, not necessarily in a counter-productive way but potentially so, so it can be a judgment call. This hasn't affected the applicant's education per se, but schools give quite a bit of latitude in terms of choice of projects, so the portfolio has ended up being a little different from that of others. If in the future this turns out to be a bigger issue during production, I may need to find some other idea/technology/person to compensate. In terms of fit/personality, I haven't noticed anything remarkable. I'm hoping that even if things really don't work out down the road, despite doing our best, we would still be able to part ways amicably.

Full question: When evaluating job candidates with an unconventional background, eg illnesses, disabilities, convictions, etc., what approaches should I adopt in addition to, or differently from, what's typically used so that I can maximize both fairness as well as my company's interests (US multi state)?

Background: This is for a start-up that I'm building. It can be difficult to compete for talents with more established businesses, so I'd like to be more open-minded, which may turn out to be win-win. At the same time, for the most part this is uncharted territory for me. I'm aware of the potential legal issues and have been careful in that repsect. But I would also like to learn from other folks who have been involved in or have knowledge of similar cases.

Additional background (for the disabilities? case): Let's say an indie start-up needs a more artistic team member (digital audio/visual) to complement existing capabilities. A motivated entry-level applicant has a condition that affects many things being produced, not necessarily in a counter-productive way but potentially so, so it can be a judgment call. This hasn't affected the applicant's education per se, but schools give quite a bit of latitude in terms of choice of projects, so the portfolio has ended up being a little different from that of others. If in the future this turns out to be a bigger issue during production, I may need to find some other idea/technology/person to compensate, if at all possible and financially sensible. In terms of fit and personality, I haven't noticed anything remarkable. I'm hoping that even if things really don't work out down the road, despite doing our best, we would still be able to part ways amicably.

Full questions: When evaluating job candidates with an unconventional background, eg illnesses, disabilities, convictions, etc., what approaches should I adopt in addition to, or differently from, what's typically used so that I can maximize both fairness as well as my company's interests (US multi state)?

Background: This is for a start-up that I'm building. It can be difficult to compete for talents with more established businesses, so I'd like to be more open-minded, which may turn out to be win-win. At the same time, for the most part this is uncharted territory for me. I'm aware of the potential legal issues and have been careful in that repsect. But I would also like to learn from other folks who have been involved in or have knowledge of similar cases.

Full question: When evaluating job candidates with an unconventional background, eg illnesses, disabilities, convictions, etc., what approaches should I adopt in addition to, or differently from, what's typically used so that I can maximize both fairness as well as my company's interests (US multi state)?

Background: This is for a start-up that I'm building. It can be difficult to compete for talents with more established businesses, so I'd like to be more open-minded, which may turn out to be win-win. At the same time, for the most part this is uncharted territory for me. I'm aware of the potential legal issues and have been careful in that repsect. But I would also like to learn from other folks who have been involved in or have knowledge of similar cases.

Additional background (for the disabilities? case): Let's say an indie start-up needs a more artistic team member (digital audio/visual) to complement existing capabilities. A motivated entry-level applicant has a condition that affects many things being produced, not necessarily in a counter-productive way but potentially so, so it can be a judgment call. This hasn't affected the applicant's education per se, but schools give quite a bit of latitude in terms of choice of projects, so the portfolio has ended up being a little different from that of others. If in the future this turns out to be a bigger issue during production, I may need to find some other idea/technology/person to compensate. In terms of fit/personality, I haven't noticed anything remarkable. I'm hoping that even if things really don't work out down the road, despite doing our best, we would still be able to part ways amicably.