The interview process included a 30-minute HR screening, a one-hour first-round interview with the hiring manager, and a third round involving a one-hour presentation to a panel. Following the presentation, I received a rejection email stating I was rejected because I used a project management framework during my case study presentation. Considering this was for a Project Manager role, it’s baffling how using a standard framework could be deemed incorrect. It was evident that the panel lacked project management expertise, which may have contributed to their misjudgment. When I asked for feedback, the recruiter provided a completely different reason, claiming there was no "connection." The supposed values interview, which was supposed to be part of the final round, didn’t even take place. The presentation round lasted 55 minutes, with only 5 minutes for Q&A—hardly enough time to discuss "connections." The purpose of the presentation was to evaluate the value and skills I bring to the role, making the feedback not only contradictory but also puzzling. Interestingly, in earlier rounds, the hiring manager explicitly related my current work to her past experience, acknowledging it as a 100% match. Despite this, they still claimed to find a lack of connection, which raises questions about the fairness of the decision. This experience left me feeling the process was neither diverse nor transparent as the company claims. Instead, it appeared dishonest and potentially discriminatory. With no audit or accountability in these interviews, such practices are allowed to persist. Conversations with former employees only confirmed similar experiences, many of whom voluntarily left due to such issues.