LinkedIn rant: 'Ditch wedding ring for job interviews'

When a man sees a dazzling diamond ring on a woman's finger he immediately assumes she is 'high maintenance', according to Bruce Hurwitz. Photo / Getty

You've researched the company, updated your CV and even stalked the CEO on Facebook - and now you just have to make it through the interview.

Whilst you may have brushed up on your company knowledge and had a fresh manicure for the occasion, one recruiter claims that wearing your engagement ring could be what costs you the job.

Taking to professional networking site LinkedIn in a post that's now gone viral, New York-based Bruce Hurwitz, an Executive Recruiter, claims that women should ditch the ring if they want to impress.

In a post he shared last week that has suddenly got people talking and is titled: "When interviewing for a job, lose the ring!", he explains: "Years ago I was working for a recruiter. A colleague interviewed a woman. I was not present during the interview.

"When they left the conference room the woman asked my colleague, 'You know, I have had a number of interviews and no offers. Did you find anything wrong with my interviewing skills?' My colleague assured her that she had not.

"Even though I had not been introduced to her, and despite the fact that, at that moment, I was alone with five women all of whom were wearing engagement rings, I said,
'Lose the rock!'

"Everyone looked at me. The woman had the Hope Diamond on her finger. She, and my colleagues, asked for an explanation."

Bruce went on to claim that when a man sees the dazzling diamond ring on a woman's finger he immediately assumes she is "high maintenance."

He also added: "When the woman at the office who has the largest diamond on her finger, sees that ring, she will realise that if you are hired she will fall to second place and will, therefore, not like you. Lose the ring!"

Bruce went on to claim that the same woman he had given advice to called him two weeks later and had secured a job - all because she left her engagement ring at home. Bruce added that it happened to half a dozen more women.

He concluded: "Not wearing an engagement ring is not lying. Being engaged is not a 'protected class' like gender, religion, or even marital status. After all, just because you are engaged does not mean you are actually going to get married. So not telling an employer that you plan to get married, is fine. It is none of her business. It would only be relevant if, let's say, you needed some time off in the not too distant future.

"So lose the rock! And, if you don't have one, but got engaged by signing a pre-nup, find a way to let male interviewers know that. They'll respect you. (Women may as well, but I'm not certain that this is the case.)"

His post has been met with thousands of comments from enraged women.

One lady hailed his advice "ridiculous drivel", writing: "As the former SVP of recruitment and talent for a Fortune 50 company I would FIRE any firm who gave this kind of advice to candidates. It's biased. It's ridiculous and it makes women sound petty and small. Welcome to 2016 Mr. Hurwitz you may want to join us here."

Another hailed his advice "archaic", saying: "Good grief!! Making judgments as suggested in this article are archaic. If people are really sizing up talent by a ring, no ring, or the size of it. It's a red flag! Run the other way and don't look back. Should a man remove his wedding band?"

A man got involved in the heated debate, adding: "This might be the single most idiotic article I have read on LinkedIn this year. Whomever is conducting interviews in this nature and basing a hiring decision off of a woman being married/engaged is not following best practices and totally unethical."

MailOnline has contacted Bruce Hurwitz and a spokesperson for LinkedIn and is awaiting comment.