Relying on AI To Screen Job Seekers? You Could Be Risking Damage to Your Brand

On paper, Bill Rosinski looked like a perfect candidate to be the next play-by-play announcer for the NFL’s Baltimore Ravens.

He had the experience bringing decades of broadcasting chops to the table as the announcer for the Carolina Panthers and the Atlanta Falcons. He also worked at ESPN Radio and Westwood One.

But the 72-year-old industry veteran didn’t even qualify for a personal interview with the Ravens. Instead, the team dispatched him with a generic “Dear John” letter.

“At this time, we have decided to pursue other candidates whose background and experience are more closely aligned with the requirements of the position” the form letter stated in part, according to the Charlotte Observer.

Rosinski shared the rejection on social media, sparking a massive online conversation.

His story is a cautionary tale for today’s hiring. When companies swap human recruiters for artificial intelligence algorithms, efficiency comes at a steep cost. Automated systems can do more than alienate great candidates;  they can damage a company’s brand.

For their part, the Ravens, the Observer reported, didn’t use AI to weed Rosinski from the other candidates, but used a real person to make the decision. They also recently hired a new play-by-play announcer.

Yet, too many organizations are racing to automate as much of the hiring process as possible. Applicant tracking systems and AI-driven screening tools are becoming standard practice, particularly for larger companies trying to manage high application volumes.

The goal is understandable: improve efficiency and reduce administrative workload.

However, hiring is still fundamentally a human process and companies risk damaging their reputations and brands by dismissing job applicants with a standard rejection letter generated from a bot.

The problem isn’t AI, it’s how it’s being used. Most organizations are making the same three mistakes:

1. Over-filtering before human review: Candidates are screened out by algorithms before a hiring manager ever sees them.
2. Losing the human experience: Applicants go through an entirely automated process with little to no real interaction.
3. Over-engineering the interview process: Companies are requiring eight to 12 interviews for roles that should take three to four conversations to assess.

Too many hiring decisions are being filtered through automated processes before a real human conversation ever happens. As a result, talented candidates can easily get overlooked simply because they don’t perfectly match an algorithm.

Some candidates are rejected because of semantic mismatches rather than capability gaps. A candidate with director-level experience may be screened out because their resume uses ‘managed’ instead of ‘supervised,’ or ‘led’ instead of ‘owned.’ These systems are effective at parsing keywords, but they still struggle to evaluate context, nuance, and leadership experience.

That is where companies need to be careful.

Companies are losing the human touch and missing out on branding opportunities because they’re overwhelmed with so many applicants.

People will apply for a job and never get anything from a human being. Everything is automated. This doesn’t just frustrate candidates; it creates business risk. Top candidates opt out of a process that they believe is broken. In many cases, they don’t complain, they simply disengage.

When the hiring process becomes overly automated or drawn out, companies experience lower offer acceptance rates, longer time-to-fill for critical roles and increased reliance on external recruiting spend.

This does not amplify the human experience; it not only hurts the job seeker, but it ultimately hurts the employer’s reputation and brand. When you think about the hiring process it is a branding opportunity. Most organizations aren’t really thinking that through, and they’re sending out automated rejection emails to clear out job seekers who are nothing more than a nuisance to them.

Rather than removing automation entirely, companies should introduce targeted human checkpoints that include:

• Requiring human review before rejecting qualified candidates who meet baseline criteria.
• Limiting interview rounds to three to four for most roles, unless there is a clear business reason to extend. Ten, 11, and 12 interviews are insanity.
• Differentiating communication by stage: early-stage automation is acceptable, but later-stage candidates should receive personalized outreach.

The goal isn’t to eliminate efficiency, it’s to apply human judgment at the moments that matter most.

Companies must remember that people looking for jobs talk, and the way they are treated becomes part of your brand story.

Unfortunately for the Ravens, Bill Rosinski had a megaphone, and his story of rejection has been seen and commented on by millions. The lesson is clear: companies that handle candidates with a human touch are not just filling jobs, they are building trust, strengthening their reputation, and creating advocates for their brand even among people they do not hire.

[Editors’ Note: To learn more about this subject, watch “An Ounce of Prevention: Policies, Procedures, and Proactivity,” a free on-demand webinar. 

This article was originally published on July 31, 2026.]

©2026. DailyDAC^TM, LLC d/b/a/ Financial Poise^TM. This article is subject to the disclaimers found here.