Can you go into any specifics as to what was (allegedly) said to the candidates? 18 cases sounds like the company was either interviewing thousands of applicants or giving very strong reasons for legal challenges.
A system where the loser pays the winner the amount the loser paid their own lawyers will stop most of this nonsense.
So I don't think it would be a problem.
- A complainant who loses on a technicality or procedural failure, and is now on the hook for hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
- A big company that bullies the complainant with legal shenanegans until the complainant is worn out, drops the case, and is now on the hook for hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
Just the fact that, after your own expensive legal fees, you'll be saddled with the big company's (much bigger) fees as well, would be enough to deter most people from suing, even if they're in the right. It would become a new tool for bullying the poor.
A better formula for what loser pays would be:
min(what you paid your lawyers, what the other side paid their lawyers)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se_legal_representation_in...
For individuals, representing oneself pro se is extremely common.
Corporations must have an attorney, of course.
I've been at companies hit with employment law cases but always from current or former employees, never from potential applicants. It seems difficult to prove, unless the rejected candidate is given physical proof of wrong-doing.