A job applicant is suing an organization for disparate treatment because the job interviewer told the applicant, 'You don't have the all-American look we're going for.' What should human resources do after receiving an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint in relation to this scenario?

While reviewing past hiring practices is important for understanding historical trends, this action alone does not provide the necessary evidence to address specific allegations of discrimination. It may reveal issues but does not directly compare how different groups have been treated in the hiring process, which is essential for the EEOC investigation.

Documenting adverse reactions may be useful in understanding employee sentiment or responses to hiring practices, but it does not specifically address the comparative nature of treatment among applicants. This documentation is not sufficient to show how candidates from different backgrounds have been treated in hiring decisions.

Establishing indirect evidence could potentially support a case of discrimination; however, it is less direct than comparative evidence. Indirect evidence does not provide a clear picture of the actual discriminatory practices compared to how similarly qualified candidates have been treated, which is the key aspect needed for the EEOC complaint.