He felt her looks would be too distracting for him and his team.

First impressions hold a tremendous amount of weight, especially in a professional setting. But what happens when you do everything right, but you are judged based on traits that are simply out of your control? Case in point: A hiring manager was accused of being sexist after admitting that he refused to hire a candidate because of how she looked.

The employer posted about a job interview he had done with a woman on an anonymous online forum, which was later shared on X, in which he claimed that he couldn't advance her to the next round of interviews because he feared that her appearance would disrupt the work environment.

In the post, the hiring manager explained that he usually handles all first-round interviews for his company, and for most of those interviews, he gets male candidates because of the field he works in.

"I recently did an interview where the candidate performed good enough to be okayed for further rounds," he wrote. "But during the interview, I did get distracted a few times."

He claimed that he found the job candidate both his type and extremely attractive. Based on that, he decided not to hire her, fearing that her attractiveness would disrupt the work environment for him and his other male colleagues. "I rejected her because I thought it was not good for me or my team if she ended up getting hired," he noted. After rejecting the candidate, he acknowledged that he felt terrible about it and insisted that while he's "happily married" and often finds other women attractive, he never acts on his impulses.

"This person would be in close proximity if she ended up getting hired, and I would have totally messed up," he continued. "Looking for advice on how to deal with situations like these and stop feeling guilt."

According to the Pew Research Center, about four-in-ten working women (42%) in the United States say they have faced discrimination on the job because of their gender. Furthermore, women are roughly four times as likely as men to say they have been treated as if they were not competent because of their gender -- 23% of employed women versus 6% of men.

When a hiring manager refuses to hire a candidate solely based on her physical appearance, specifically deeming her "too attractive," it can be seen as a manifestation of sexist and discriminatory attitudes.

In fact, a study from 2019 confirmed that attractiveness can actually hurt a woman's career. Researchers wrote, "In what we label the 'femme fatale' effect, we proposed and found support for the notion that attractive businesswomen are judged as being less truthful than less attractive women for reasons rooted in sexual insecurity."

This comes on the heels of a study from 2011 suggesting that women who wear some arbitrary amount of makeup that's neither too much nor too little, which makes them appear more attractive, are deemed "more likeable, competent, and trustworthy in the workplace."

All this is to say that women can't win. You are either too attractive, not attractive enough, don't wear enough makeup, or wear too much makeup. As Maya Crockett wrote in a piece for Stylist regarding the 2011 study, "if average-looking women lose out on career opportunities to those who are more conventionally gorgeous, and beautiful businesswomen are viewed with ruthless suspicion by those around them, as this research suggests, where does that leave us? Essentially, we're stuck in the middle, trying to be the visual equivalent of Goldilocks: not too pretty, not too plain. And that, to put it mildly, is infuriating. "

"No, don't stop feeling guilty. What you did was terrible, you know it. You rejected a good candidate [because] it wouldn't be 'good for you,'" one X user wrote. "You felt you could not 'handle' her attractiveness. I wish u were never in a position to make hiring decisions. That's the unfortunate part."

Another user added, "If you can't compartmentalize work & personal life you don't belong in a leadership position!" Continuing, "This is an issue with him not being able to control himself & unfortunately, it cost a qualified woman her job. All because of his misogynistic way of thinking."

A third user pointed out, "I love how he automatically assumes that she would also be attracted to him. I have also hired and worked with women for over 20 years ... [The] ability to do the job is the only requirement and you are treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else in the company."

Refusing to hire a candidate based on their attractiveness not only denies the candidate a fair chance of employment but also creates a hostile work environment. This kind of behavior perpetuates harmful stereotypes and objectifies women, reducing them to their physical appearance rather than evaluating their qualifications, skills, and experiences relevant to the job.

Sadly, as research suggests, this hiring manager's actions are not the outlier when it comes to women breaking into male-dominated fields. That doesn't mean women should kowtow to these outdated notions, however. The only way things change is to recognize the bias and keep pushing forward.