TL; DR—latter half of interview process was not timely or efficient. Could do far better with enacting diversity and equal opportunity if they just asked about job-related skills and verification, not documentation that’s often dependent on financial or or health status. My first contact with EMC Research was at a virtual career fair for political progressives—specifically minority, LGBTQ, and disabled persons (I fit all 3; more on that later). A few months after the fair, I saw a position that interested me and applied. Approx. one month later, I was contacted to schedule an interview via Teams video conference. Interviewers (a coordinator and a higher-up) were polite, asked a few open-ended questions and told me more about the company. At the end, I was asked to take an assessment if I was interested in continuing the process. The next day, the assessment entailed proofreading, correcting, and drawing conclusions from polling data/survey results and memos in a Word document and PowerPoint slides. About a week later, I was scheduled to interview with a VP and another executive. Up to this point, it was nothing but a positive, cordial experience. Less than 24 hours prior to the second interview, I was emailed about needing to fill out “a few forms” by 9 or 10 PM. Did not receive said forms until at least 3 PM (probably later) It was an entire new application, asking me questions I already answered in the original application and interview, requiring me to clear my evening schedule for cutting, pasting, revising, and asking parents about approximate dates and paper documentation going back to high school in 2006-10 (lots of information still wasn’t being done digitally then). Had to guess on exact dates of work and education, and couldn’t ask EMC for guidance since it was so late. I was also asked if I had a driver’s license (I did not at the time due to ongoing treatment for a legally documented disability). As they explicitly stated during the interview, the job could be done remotely and travel was an opportunity, not a requirement or duty, it would be better to just ask about necessary job skills, criminal background, and government-issued identification. Driver’s licenses can be a cipher for socioeconomic or disability status. Also, it’s disrespectful to us from less privileged backgrounds, and with disabilities, to dig invasively into our personal lives. It would be more respectful and would advance equal opportunity to not treat us like criminals or suspect when we can demonstrate our credentials and a clear criminal record. The second interview was basically rephrased questions from the previous interview, and a different question about workplace preferences (i.e., independent vs group work). VP very obviously kept looking over at something else on the side of his screen as I answered his questions. He looked quite bored/preoccupied and gave flat “uh-huhs” to my responses. At the end, he said I would hear something from them in “about 2 weeks.” More than three weeks later (Thanksgiving Eve), I received a polite “we’re not going forward” email. Disappointed, I resumed my search for similar position on Indeed. My results showed the posting I had applied to and said they were still actively reviewing applications. A few days later, that posting was removed and immediately replaced in the new job postings. Since they determined it was better to leave the position vacant than hire me, I believe it would better demonstrate their professed value of “Respect” if they had not waited until the moment before leaving for the Holiday. Also, a progressive employer could really advance equity by giving constructive advice/tips that disadvantaged groups may not know.