Not hired b/c of non-related factor?

[jamhunt009]

I am in NC and was denied a job b/c I have a legal case against another employer still pending. I was told by the boss that the reason he will not hire me is b/c I have a pending case at the other job that has not been settled which has nothing to do with the current job denied. His own anti discrimination policy says they will not discriminate based on other non related factors. I believe I was discriminated due to him not hiring me due to the other non related factors. He is in violation of his own policy I believe. Do I have grounds to file an EEOC case. I am not sue happy. I just don't let people steam roll me if I can help it.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

We cannot read your mind. You need to tell us the basis for which you feel discriminated against and what the new employer said.

 

[jamhunt009]

Denied

The potential new employer told me that he would not hire me b/c I had an unsettled case with another agency that I have won twice against and is now going before NC Court of Appeals and that it is his practice not to hire anyone that has any pending legal matters of any type. This is a state employer and their own anti discrimination policy states that they will not discriminate based on age, race....."or other non-related factors." My pending litigation with a former employer is a non-related factor and is precisely why he said that he would not hire me presently. He said I had to wait until my case was settled first. I believe he discriminated against me based on my court case upcoming. He is also friends with my former employer.

 

[cbg]

Based SOLELY on the basis of what you have posted, no, you do not have grounds to file an EEOC case or any other kind of case. "People who have pending cases with other employers" are not a protected category under the law.

It is possible - not probable, but *possible* that additional details might change the answer.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I think the potential to hire a litigious employee is a relevant factor. I know I would be very careful about a history like that.

 

[swalsh411]

Their own policy is not legally binding. Only the law is legally binding, and there is no law that says they cannot hire you because you have a pending case against a former employer.

How did they even find out about it? Did you volunteer this information?

 

[You Are Guilty]

It appears the new employer was entirely justified, both legally and morally, in not extending an offer based on other pending litigation.

 

[eerelations]

To elaborate on another responder's answer, discrimination is only illegal if it's based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, disability, age (over 40 only) and disability. "Pending cases against former employers" is not a protected characteristic, ergo discriminating against you for this reason is perfectly legal.

I'm curious too: how did the prospective employer find out about your pending lawsuit?

 

[ESteele]

OP, what is the underlying cause or causes of action in the original lawsuit against your former employer? You have not responded this question. The answer could potentially be determinative whether the prospective employer’s refusal to hire you contravenes any cognizable anti-retaliation provisions.

 

[csi7]

The same thing happened to me in Florida, and after the case was settled, I was provided the name of the individual who provided the information.
It is not protected information, and becomes a matter of public record.
I filed against one state agency, was interviewed and selected as top candidate for another state agency, and was not hired due to the active investigation.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

I am not sue happy.

Your post says otherwise in 1,000,000,000 point type.

 

[eerelations]

I agree. One lawsuit could be perfectly reasonable but two starts looking pretty happy to me...again, how did the prospective employer find out about the lawsuit against the former employer? Did you volunteer the information? If so, why?

 

[jamhunt009]

Widely known Case

My case is widely known in this county as it relates to the public school system in this area and their failure to pay me workers compensation as an attempt was made on my life two years ago while on my way to work. I was shot in the face with a shot gun while in route by unknown assailant/s while on my issued school phone conducting school business talking to a school staff member (NCIC W18411). I also get paid travel to and from work and it is in my contract which is why I have won my case before the deputy NCIC and the NCIC Full Commission. Of course, the public school system has since altered the administrator contracts and denied that fact in court and was caught in court lying as we had a copy of the new contract. Times are tough and I sought employment at a nearby college and went through the employment screening process and was about to meet with the VP when she was informed that it was a no go. I was seeking to earn a small amount as a substitute. I met with the president and he told me directly that until my public school case is finalized then I will not be considered for employment at the college. He also said that my litigation is not with them. As noted, the president of the college is very good friends with the public school superintendent. I believe that the good ole boy system is at play here and that this is a form of retaliation based on my workers compensation case.

 

[ESteele]

I am sorry to hear about this vicious, terrible attack you endured during work. I hope you are healed and restored!

You may be correct about the operation of the “good ole boy system.” However, we do not have to speculate about the motivation for denying you the college opening. If I understand your posts, you were explicitly told you would not be hired at the college because your litigation concerning your injury at your former job remains pending.

In North Carolina, it is an actionable breach of public policy to retaliate against a worker who exercises his or her right to petition for worker’s compensation insurance benefits. You should have a direct discussion with a local, experienced employment law attorney concerning the viability of bringing such an action against a third party employer under these circumstances.

You should also discuss with your counsel how you can establish the college did not hire you because of your pending workers compensation litigation. Do you have any e-mails or anything else in writing to confirm that the college did not hire you because your workers compensation litigation remains pending? If not, do you have any witnesses who can corroborate your account? You want to explore if there is any direct or circumstantial evidence which would further bolster your putative claim against the college. You would want to have more than a “he said, she said” situation, if possible.

 

[tranquility]

"Retaliate" against a "worker", how so?

The OP was not retaliated against, but there was some action against him. But, was he an employee? No. Even an appellate court in NC, taking a broad reading of the law, only went so far as to say a non-renewal of an employment contract could be a source of a complaint if it was for this prohibited reason.

The OP was not an employee. He was not discharged. The Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act protects employees.