The automated applicant tracking system deployed by the mid-sized professional services firm in Kitchener, Ontario processed the application in 4.7 seconds before generating its rejection notice on a Tuesday morning in early 2024. The 29-year-old lawyer who had been called to the Ontario bar 18 months earlier opened the email on her phone while standing in line at a coffee shop, reading only that she had been "carefully considered" but would not advance to the interview stage for either of the 2 legal positions advertised. She had graduated near the top of her class at a law faculty outside Canada, completed the National Committee on Accreditation process, articled at a recognized Ontario firm, and spent her first 18 months of practice handling commercial litigation files that would challenge lawyers with twice her experience. The system had processed her credentials against a threshold requiring 7 or more years of practice, classified her as deficient, and terminated her candidacy without any human being reviewing her file, considering her international legal training, or triggering the override mechanism that the firm's vendor had described as available but that no one at the firm had been trained to use. This lesson examines what happens when an organization must review such an automated rejection after the fact, working backward from an outcome that has already crystallized into a potential human rights complaint.