I received an invite to interview with the recruiter. I was very excited, and carefully used the JD to prepare. Sadly, 7 mins into the call, the recruiter cut me off and said the Hiring manager strictly wants someone who owned "0-to-1" implementation of a new Applicant Tracking System. She then ended the call. Considering that I prepared for the call and that this requirement was not outlined in the job description, it was insulting. I spent a fair amount of time preparing for the call, which included reviewing the Job Description. I was excited about the deep experience I had in every category on the JD, including tool & system implementation. The Job Description outlined "Oversee the implementation and optimization of recruitment systems and tools; ensure seamless integration of new technologies into existing workflows," which I have extensive experience in, both at employers and for clients as a consultant, and I was excited to talk about it. If it was a job requirement to have lead *specifically* an ATS implementation, it should be accounted for in the job description. Otherwise, what is the point of a job description? Vague lists of what the title of the role might do? While I think the hiring team's requirement of ATS implementation experience is overly specific and reflects an immature hiring mindset, regardless it should have been accounted for before I took the call. I was very disappointed in my candidate experience with Checkr. With such an established company like Checkr, I expected a lot more.