Hiring discrimination

[kolabok]

What is the name of your state (Virginia)?

Greetings,

This is a question concerning a right to seek gainful employment and being blacklisted from the previous employer. As a qualified candidate, presumably having the credentials, experience, and work history. I would conclude in the 1st round of vetting, that is, the hiring manager would distill the list down by putting all the qualified in the to do pile and the others in the reject pile, then go onwards to the interviewing process. Is this reasonable to assume and if politically correct, why would one not put a qualified candidate into the next round of vetting of which is the interview? Even if there is no intention on the employer of hiring. I know the employer only need hire a qualified candidate, not the best or worst for that matter
Would this be a form of discrimination in the workplace? The EEOC site suggests it could be, put there are many obstacles as well to infer no. It is obvious that this is a good example of fowl hiring practices.
There is more to this true event, but that is another question and I need to ascertain the reality of going up against a governmental agency.
Any advice, links or even a recommendation for a good discrimination law firm that THINKS it smells fishy
Thank you

 

[The Occultist]

You've provided no details to state why you think you've been discriminated against. The fact is, there is no law that states how a manager scrutinizes resumes/applications (other than to not filter based on protected classes). I knew one business manager who would file away the application for anybody who called more than once to check on their app because he found that annoying --and that is legal. I've known SEVERAL businesses to bypass otherwise qualified resumes because the email address from which the resume was sent was deemed to be too inappropriate/unprofessional --and that is legal. So whatever process you think this company should be using to decide who to set up for interviews is really none of your business --unless they truly are discriminating against you based on your status within a protected class. So in what way are you being discriminated against?

 

[Shadowbunny]

What is the name of your state (Virginia)?

Greetings,

This is a question concerning a right to seek gainful employment and being blacklisted from the previous employer. As a qualified candidate, presumably having the credentials, experience, and work history. I would conclude in the 1st round of vetting, that is, the hiring manager would distill the list down by putting all the qualified in the to do pile and the others in the reject pile, then go onwards to the interviewing process. Is this reasonable to assume and if politically correct, why would one not put a qualified candidate into the next round of vetting of which is the interview? Even if there is no intention on the employer of hiring. I know the employer only need hire a qualified candidate, not the best or worst for that matter
Would this be a form of discrimination in the workplace? The EEOC site suggests it could be, put there are many obstacles as well to infer no. It is obvious that this is a good example of fowl hiring practices.
There is more to this true event, but that is another question and I need to ascertain the reality of going up against a governmental agency.
Any advice, links or even a recommendation for a good discrimination law firm that THINKS it smells fishy
Thank you

Is this reasonable to assume? Absolutely not. We've posted jobs that resulted in over 500 applicants. EVEN if 20% are qualified, that would be 100 interviews. And that is simply too much.

Would this be discrimination. Yes, but not necessarily illegal discrimination. As long as applicants aren't being put in the "ignore" pile because they're a member of a protected class, then it's legal to not interview every eligible applicant.

 

[kolabok]

You've provided no details to state why you think you've been discriminated against. The fact is, there is no law that states how a manager scrutinizes resumes/applications (other than to not filter based on protected classes). I knew one business manager who would file away the application for anybody who called more than once to check on their app because he found that annoying --and that is legal. I've known SEVERAL businesses to bypass otherwise qualified resumes because the email address from which the resume was sent was deemed to be too inappropriate/unprofessional --and that is legal. So whatever process you think this company should be using to decide who to set up for interviews is really none of your business --unless they truly are discriminating against you based on your status within a protected class. So in what way are you being discriminated against?

the details are like this,

Applied for the job in January of this year, no go, just thank you for applying and keep on trying. Same job reappears (I guess the qualified candidate didn't work out for them) in May. I called to inquire about it, told interviews in process, (that indicates, no go again).
Discrimination category (isn’t that discrimination to classify and categorize?) I could say over age 40 that would be true for me and countless other Americans who get in that funk zone of being in the age group of between 50 and 62, male and you can fill in the last -----.
But I do not know the ages of the other applicants and I’m not sure if that is a viable FOIA request. I could however go there and ask, “who is the new kid on the block”, and then do a background check myself to ascertain the age discrimination. But that’s not the truth and the truth will never come out, simply bent human nature.
My version of the truth is, I worked for a local government for 17 years, terminated for working overtime while sitting in my county vehicle with DRIVECAM staring at me. DRIVECAM is a time clock by the way, with no accuracy to authenticate whether one is behind the wheel or not, (sorry digressing a bit). And 60 percent turnover rate for that particular job.
Anyway my job is sort of like a collective, such as a union, that is each jurisdiction has a building official and inspectors, plan reviewers and so on. Funny thing is, the building official where I applied for the job, use to work for the other place I was terminated from, sound fishy?
The truth is, the truth will never come out from either entity, so I FOIA’d the employer (the one where I was not given the time of day twice less than 4 months apart), specifically rom the building official, deputy building official and hiring manger for any communication between the later and former employer for a specific time period.
Whether you’ll believe it or not, whether it is discrimination or not, this has happened and it is very difficult to prove without Prima fascia evidence.
What you have stated clearly indicates business as usual and we don’t give a ---- who we offend, (coming from the employer), and secondly your wasting your time trying to find a crack in the door, is that about right ?
Why is there no accountability? How are they able to defame, blacklist, and make false accusations?
Should I set up a fake phone call from a prospective employer and listen to what is spoken?
Is it even worth it? Or perhaps I should just hunt them down and provide insect politics? There are no politics in the insect world, fight or run.
So in summation, there is no chance of justice, redemption or new found career. Cast aside as trash and they get away with it again and again. Not quite the American dream I was fed.

 

[commentator]

No one asked you to eat some bogus "dream," you simply made a lot of assumptions that you had more rights and privileges in employment situations than you do or anyone ever has. It's not fair and I feel I have been mistreated are not valid legal arguments. I strongly doubt you will get EEOC to agree that you have any sort of case if you file a complaint with them, doubt that a "right to sue" letter is in your future anywhere. And I also strongly doubt you'd find an attorney to take your case on contingency basis, which would mean you don't have any real case anywhere. Good luck on your continuing job search.

You speak a truth, it IS harder for people over 40 to find a job. Unfortunately, that is not something that can be addressed or fixed quickly and is no reason you should be expecting more consideration on the job market or you'll sue. You may have to really broaden your job search, may not be able to replace the jobs you've had in the past.

 

[cbg]

You are making a great many assumptions but here are some facts for you:

1.) No entity owes you a job.
2.) No entity owes you an interview.
3.) No entity is required to interview every person who applies.
4.) It is not ILLEGAL discrimination to "classify and categorize" unless it is done on the basis of a characteristic protected by law.
5.) No entity is required to give you any information about who they hired or why they were hired.
6.) You have provided no evidence whatsoever that anyone has "defamed" you - in fact, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that anyone has said a single word about you.
7.) I don't see that you have any case for anything at all. But if you are determined to pursue this, you would need to do so by means of a discrimination claim through the EEOC. THEY can get hiring records if they feel it necessary. YOU cannot.
8.) While not required by law, in your case I VERY strongly recommend that before you file any kind of claim with any kind of agency, you discuss the entire situation with an employment law attorney.

 

[kolabok]

yup thanks, moving on, forum is informative

I leave you'll a saying "there is only one supreme judge, those who try to take his place are like children carving into wood as a master carpenter, most will injure their own hand",.
good day ladies and gentleman
thank you

 

[Taxing Matters]

the details are like this,

I could say over age 40 that would be true for me and countless other Americans who get in that funk zone of being in the age group of between 50 and 62, male and you can fill in the last -----.

It is harder for applicants who are in their 50s and 60s to get jobs. There is no doubt about that. But the reason for that is not just age discrimination (though that surely does happen). It is also for a variety of other reasons that have nothing to do with illegal discrimination. This is one reason why most age discrimination cases are so difficult to win. It’s difficult to prove that the reason the employer didn’t select you was because of your age and not some other factor.

My version of the truth is, I worked for a local government for 17 years, terminated for working overtime while sitting in my county vehicle with DRIVECAM staring at me. DRIVECAM is a time clock by the way, with no accuracy to authenticate whether one is behind the wheel or not, (sorry digressing a bit). And 60 percent turnover rate for that particular job.

Government employment is a different animal than private employment. In general you have more protection as a government employee than you do with private employment. But when it comes to hiring processes in local government, often there is no rigid hiring process that must be followed like you will find with the federal government and some state governments.

If you were fired for alleged overtime abuse, that may be a factor in your troubles in finding a new job.

Anyway my job is sort of like a collective, such as a union, that is each jurisdiction has a building official and inspectors, plan reviewers and so on. Funny thing is, the building official where I applied for the job, use to work for the other place I was terminated from, sound fishy?

It does not sound fishy at all. Indeed, it may help explain why you were passed over. If the building official knew why you were terminated at your old job, he may well have told that to the hiring official at this job and being fired at your old job for potential overtime abuse would be a valid nondiscriminatory reason for not interviewing you and not hiring you.

The truth is, the truth will never come out from either entity, so I FOIAÂ’d the employer (the one where I was not given the time of day twice less than 4 months apart), specifically rom the building official, deputy building official and hiring manger for any communication between the later and former employer for a specific time period.

The truth is that you have not provided any clear evidence that the employer passed you over simply because of your age. On the other hand, you have provided information that suggests the employer might have had a valid reason not to consider you. Given that, it will be hard to prove an age discrimination case here. That’s not to say it would be impossible. I don’t have all the facts and cannot say for sure that you don’t have a shot. You might want to consult an employment law attorney who litigates employment discrimination claims for advice. Just understand going in that unless you can come up with some evidence that clearly points to age discrimination the claim will fail. It is your burden in court to prove the discrimination.

Cast aside as trash and they get away with it again and again. Not quite the American dream I was fed.

People get fired every day in this country. You are not the first and won’t be last to be fired in your 50s and have trouble finding a new job. You may have to broaden the scope of your job search and consider jobs outside your local area or jobs in a different field than in government building inspection or whatever the job was. There are jobs to be had out there if you look hard enough and are willing to compromise a bit from what your dream job would be. No one ever promised that you’d have a job for life as part of the American Dream.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I strongly doubt you will get EEOC to agree that you have any sort of case if you file a complaint with them, doubt that a "right to sue" letter is in your future anywhere.

The OP would get the right to sue letter. The EEOC gives out a right to sue letter to everyone who files a complaint alleging illegal discrimination on a basis covered by the laws that the EEOC enforces unless the EEOC decides to litigate the case itself. It is a common misconception by employees that a right to sue letter means the EEOC thinks the claim has merit. It means no such thing. All it means is that the EEOC has decided not to litigate the case itself.

 

[HRZ]

Well perhaps...but so far it's been well over a year since my spouses age discrimination complaint was filed and a few rounds of fact gathering took place, number issued at al ...and EEOC has yet to issue any such letter.

 

[cbg]

It can easily take up to 2 years for such a letter to be written. You can request it at any time after 180 days, I believe.

 

[HRZ]

OP ..proof of age discrimination is a big uphill issue....and there are 101 other plausible reasons your application never made the cut and unless you are a glutton for statistical punishment it may be darn hard to show employer disproportionate rejects older applicants ....it is NOT illegal to bypass you for some other wart on your record ( other than a protected characteristic in your state or federal law )

You did not state if you are seeking state level. Public sector employment ..but that's a double set of problems due to,way federal age discrimination law was drafted decades ago re state soverginity issues ..in short, EEOC may not be of any help..State level age over 40 protections vary ...

You seem to describe a private sector job ...but it's not clear. A private sector employer could well ditch your application if you were let go for supposed overtime abuse or you chose to wear green socks on Mondays

For whatever my laymans vote is worth..I think you are wasting your talents and time to pursue an age discrimination matter in the fact pattern you describe ...and if word gets out you are seeking to sue any potential employer you may be too hot to handle anyplace you apply .

 

[Zigner]

For all you know, after the first interview, the interviewer may pick up the stack of qualified resumes, toss them in the air, then only proceed forward with the ones that land face up. That is a perfectly legal way of doing things.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Well perhaps...but so far it's been well over a year since my spouses age discrimination complaint was filed and a few rounds of fact gathering took place, number issued at al ...and EEOC has yet to issue any such letter.

If your wife does not want to wait for the EEOC to finish its investigation. Age discrimination claims are handled a bit differently than other federal employment discrimination claims. While the employee must file a timely complaint with the EEOC before filing a lawsuit, unlike other forms of discrimination the employee does not need to get a right to sue letter before filing suit. The employee may file a lawsuit at any time after 60 days have passed from the date the EEOC complaint was filed. 29 U.S.C. § 626. If she wants to go this route, it must be done within 2 years of the discriminating act, so your wife will not want to wait much longer to consult an attorney and determine whether she has a viable claim and, if so, when to file the lawsuit. The other option is to wait to get the right to sue letter and file suit within 90 days of receiving that letter.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I have a question for the OP. Did the application and/or resume you submitted have your DOB or age on it?

Also you started this thread with this statement, "This is a question concerning a right to seek gainful employment and being blacklisted from the previous employer."

What is your question regarding this issue? There is no national blacklist. You may have gotten a bad reference but there is only an issue there if they lied to give you such a reference.

Also, you asked about FOIA for data from the employer you applied with. Private entities aren't subject to the FOIA. And employee application for government jobs aren't either.