- Backdoor references aren’t due diligence, they’re unchecked gossip. Reaching out to off-list contacts without consent invites bias, power plays, and personal vendettas into hiring decisions.
- Professional sabotage is real, and it’s wearing a business-casual disguise. Whisper networks and informal “intel” often mimic high school politics more than fair hiring practices.
- Legal risks are rising. Courts in the U.S. and abroad are cracking down on retaliatory or defamatory off-the-record references; what feels casual could end in court.
- Backdoor reference checks are widely used but rarely tracked. There’s little data on how often they happen, even though they can quietly shape careers and expose employers to legal risk.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve warned hiring managers and leaders to steer clear of informal, backchannel reference checks. And yet, they still happen. Sometimes it’s plain curiosity. Sometimes it’s a friend of a friend offering up some “helpful” intel. But often, it’s something worse—a form of professional gossip dressed up as due diligence.
What Are Backdoor References?
Backdoor references happen when someone reaches out to contacts the candidate didn’t provide, often without their knowledge or consent. Looking someone up on LinkedIn or reviewing public portfolios? Of course, people talk. That’s expected. But picking up the phone to call an old colleague who isn’t on the reference list? That crosses a line.
These backchannel conversations usually fly under the radar. What gets missed is how easily they can slip into gossip. They’re not always about getting useful or objective info — sometimes it’s personal bias, office politics, or old grudges at play. It’s gatekeeping dressed up as curiosity.
Mean Girls, Mean Boys, Mean People, and the Return of High School Politics
The term “mean girls” was popularized by Rosalind Wiseman’s 2002 book, Queen Bees and Wannabes, which explored the dynamics of female aggression in adolescence. The phrase hit mainstream culture with the 2004 film Mean Girls, but the behaviors it describes, social exclusion, backstabbing, and reputation sabotage, didn’t stay confined to high school. They evolved. And let’s be clear: the behavior isn’t exclusive to women. “Mean boys” weaponize their networks too, often through more covert or competitive forms of sabotage.
In the workplace, this shows up as relational aggression: tactics meant to damage someone’s professional reputation or social standing. Backdoor references are an ideal delivery system for that kind of harm: Whisper networks. Quiet blocklists. Undocumented doubts seeded behind closed doors.
I’ve seen it firsthand. A former manager calls an old coworker, not to verify accomplishments, but to “get the real story.” It sounds casual. But what follows is a funnel for off-the-record gossip. And when those comments influence hiring decisions, they leave real consequences and no transparency.
Why It Matters
Saying “if they’ve got nothing to hide, they’ve got nothing to worry about” to defend backchannel checks is the same flawed logic used to justify surveillance. As Professor Moon points out, it’s a way for people in power to dodge accountability. It assumes only bad candidates are affected, when in fact it gives people in power a private lane to air opinions they don’t want to own publicly.
This isn’t just about process — it’s about fairness. If something said behind closed doors can hurt a candidate’s chances, they deserve to know and have a chance to respond. That’s more than transparency. It’s basic respect.
Deb Feldman summed it up best in her piece “Backdoor References: Resist the Temptation”: even if you’re calling someone from the candidate’s past job, if they didn’t consent, you’re breaking trust—and potentially crossing a legal line.
Real-World Fallout
Several U.S. cases make it clear that informal or retaliatory references can backfire in court:
- Wang v. Nevada System of Higher Education (2018): A former boss gave a bad reference after the employee filed a discrimination complaint. It ended up being seen as retaliation.
- Simon Bennett v. Mitie Technical Facilities Management (2024): The court warned that giving informal, misleading references can cause trouble.
- Stevenson v. NY State Dept. of Corrections (2022): Negative behind-the-scenes actions, like bad references, were enough to show a hostile work environment tied to retaliation.
- Jivaro Professional Headhunters (2020): The EEOC went after a company for giving a negative reference to someone who’d filed a disability discrimination claim.
- Dinkens v. Creative Business Solutions (2013): An HR firm made off-the-record comments that harmed a candidate’s chances. The employee won on the grounds of defamation and retaliation.
- Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (2002): A supervisor lied to a potential employer, saying the employee had a lawsuit pending. The court noted that it could count as retaliation.
- Shell Oil Co. v. Omega (1997): The Supreme Court ruled that a former employer could be sued for retaliation after giving a negative reference post-discrimination complaint.
- Bilka v. Pepe’s Inc. (1985): The Northern District of Illinois held that negative references about a former employee can constitute retaliatory blocklisting under employment discrimination statutes.
- Frank B. Hall & Co. v. Buck (1984): An informal call labeled an ex-employee a “classical sociopath.” The jury awarded $1.9 million in damages.
Some states have laws that make it a crime to give a reference meant to damage someone’s job prospects. Just because it’s shared off the record doesn’t mean it’s off the hook legally, especially if it is biased, false, or done out of spite.
An International Wake-Up Call
In 2019, Leiden University tried to block a candidate from getting a job by using anonymous, off-the-record references that turned out to be personal attacks. A Dutch court called them out for it, and the university lost. It was a reminder that this kind of thing isn’t just unfair. It can be illegal.
The Data Gap
You’d think a hiring practice with real legal and ethical risks would be better tracked. But the truth is, we don’t have solid statistics on how often backdoor references actually happen. Most studies on reference checks focus on formal ones, the kind where candidates give explicit permission and the questions are documented. Informal checks, on the other hand, often slip under the radar.
There are a few reasons for that. First, they’re usually done quietly. They aren’t written down, and nobody’s asking for consent, so there’s no paper trail. Second, there’s disagreement on what even counts as a backdoor reference. Some hiring managers frame it as casual networking. Others know exactly what they’re doing and don’t want to call it that. Finally, most HR surveys don’t ask about it, probably because it’s sensitive and hard to quantify.
Still, ask around in recruiting or executive hiring circles, and you’ll hear the same thing: this is common, especially in senior-level searches, where everyone seems to know someone who knows someone. The stories are there, even if the stats aren’t.
What HR and Hiring Leaders Should Do
Here’s the bottom line if you’re involved in hiring:
- Stick to the references the candidate provides.
- If you must go beyond them, get informed consent first.
- Avoid casual intel-gathering where you can’t verify motives or accuracy.
- Stay focused on facts. Not vibes. Not vendettas.
- Verify the information you have received with the candidate, especially if it is damaging.
- Document the process
Hey, before you pass along anything shared “off the record,” just take a moment to think:
How would I feel if someone said this about me? Or about someone I’ve mentored or really cared about?
What could happen if what I’m sharing isn’t true, not just to that person, but to others, too?
Funny how gossip and networks work, sometimes we spread things without thinking, but honestly, what goes around really does come around.
A Note for Recruiters and Recruiting Firms
Recruiters carry a heavy responsibility, not just for the companies they represent, but for the candidates whose careers they influence. One unethical backchannel reference can quickly destroy trust with both sides and damage a recruiter’s reputation permanently. Because you’re dealing with networks and histories you don’t fully know, relying on informal, off-the-record calls is a legal and ethical minefield. Protect your integrity by sticking to transparent, candidate-approved references and keeping the process fair for everyone involved.
And for Candidates
You do have rights. If you lose an opportunity and suspect someone said something off-the-record that was false or retaliatory, talk to a lawyer. There may be a legal path forward.
Final Thought
Backdoor references often masquerade as due diligence. But more often, they’re about bias, power, politics, and the desire to control who gets a seat at the table.
We need hiring practices built on transparency, fairness, and professionalism, not whispers and sabotage. Not the lingering antics of the office mean girl or mean boy.
Hiring is serious business. It shapes careers, teams, and lives. Let’s treat it that way and leave the gossip where it belongs: in the past.
Subscribe to our newsletter!
Comments are closed