Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Office of Personnel Management

OPM is responsible for several broad categories such as employee recruitment and retention and oversees the overall federal workforce including managing, job announcement postings at USAJOBS.gov and setting governmentwide policies on hiring procedures.
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
James ygvhhhj  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:56:27 AM(UTC)
James ygvhhhj

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/28/2019(UTC)
Posts: 1
United States
Location: Virginia

Hello and thank you for taking the time to read my question. I applied for an internal job in which another co-worker with kids has also applied for. The position, I was told prior to applying that he was being considered because he has young children, and it would be beneficial for him to be home. The new position provides this.
My question is: Is this a reason to be considered for a job? If someone else is documented as being more qualified and is also applying, is it possible that they would not receive an offer because of their status as being single with no children?
GSBS  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:20:41 AM(UTC)
GSBS

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,843

Thanks: 338 times
Was thanked: 342 time(s) in 296 post(s)
Ygvhhhj, is that Dutch? Yes it is possible
frankgonzalez  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:45:36 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,702

Thanks: 105 times
Was thanked: 1130 time(s) in 900 post(s)
Originally Posted by: James ygvhhhj Go to Quoted Post
Hello and thank you for taking the time to read my question. I applied for an internal job in which another co-worker with kids has also applied for. The position, I was told prior to applying that he was being considered because he has young children, and it would be beneficial for him to be home. The new position provides this.
My question is: Is this a reason to be considered for a job? If someone else is documented as being more qualified and is also applying, is it possible that they would not receive an offer because of their status as being single with no children?
Yes, it is possible. But it would be illegal (family status is a protected category) to do so for that reason.

That said, if you filed an EEO complaint, you would have to show you are not simply "more qualified" but dramatically more qualified. As in no reasonable outsider could imagine selecting the selectee over you. This is a high bar to get over. If the reason you were told they were being considered is in writing, then you may have a stronger case (but not a guaranteed win!).

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
GWPDA  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, March 24, 2021 3:29:11 PM(UTC)
GWPDA

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,591

Thanks: 270 times
Was thanked: 561 time(s) in 462 post(s)
Gee, Frank, that's pretty much a parallel to any number of discrimination cases involving women. "Sorry, we can't give you that job Susie, because George is supporting a family and he needs the job." "Yes, Susie you do have a PhD in the job field and ten years increasingly responsible employment doing what we advertised, but we'll be giving George the job because you'll just be getting pregnant and leaving." It's tends to be disparate treatment, more often than not.
frankgonzalez  
#5 Posted : Thursday, March 25, 2021 3:23:24 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,702

Thanks: 105 times
Was thanked: 1130 time(s) in 900 post(s)
Originally Posted by: GWPDA Go to Quoted Post
Gee, Frank, that's pretty much a parallel to any number of discrimination cases involving women. "Sorry, we can't give you that job Susie, because George is supporting a family and he needs the job." "Yes, Susie you do have a PhD in the job field and ten years increasingly responsible employment doing what we advertised, but we'll be giving George the job because you'll just be getting pregnant and leaving." It's tends to be disparate treatment, more often than not.
And, it is illegal. And in the examples you gave, Phd, ten years of experience in the field, you'd need to look at the other person...if they match in quals...then it is hard to win. Unless you show they never or rarely hire women, then this may be hard to win.

I've led selection panels where I've not recommended any of the people, and had the selecting official pick the highest scoring one after doing 1-on-1 interviews with the top 3, and then have that person quit due to the fact they couldn't handle the work. They were passive in their approach when active behaviors were needed (as in going out to identify people needing training, org assessments, etc vs waiting for units to come to you to ask for training or assessments, etc) and this impacted their appraisal as they needed to make certain training was at X% complete, do Y number of org assessments a year and so on. And...had to remind the selection official when they left this was exactly what I had predicted would occur. The next hire, they listened to me a little more carefully and took my advice.

The difference in your examples is the comments...without them, the case becomes harder to prove. It is like a 4 legged stool. The comments are like taking away one of the legs. Can still balance upright, and you could still use it if you are careful, but it is a lot more unstable. Find a way to take out another leg (ie no women hired in the last 5 years despite plenty of well qualified women applicants), and the whole thing falls.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.138 seconds.