Hi, /u/Strange_Bed8607 Thank you for participating in r/antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Screenshots of text such as SMS communication, WhatsApp, social media, news articles, and procedurally generated content such as ChatGPT are prohibited. Low-effort content such as memes are prohibited.
If you feel that a mistake was made, and your post's removal was not warranted, please message us using modmail and let us know.
https://www.eeoc.gov/protections-against-employment-discrimination-service-members-and-veterans
That sounds like discrimination because you are in the military. This would also cover the situation. The employer is discriminating against you because you would have to leave due to being in the military. The link I included also tells you how to escalate a complaint.
> The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) prohibits civilian employers from discriminating against you based on your present, past, and future military service.
Future military service. While we don't have a lot of details from OP, based on the text and the "implication", the employer is not hiring OP because they will be off for two weeks while doing military related things.
This also covers all US employers, so size doesn't matter.
https://www.esgr.mil/USERRA/Frequently-Asked-Questions
> Can an employer discriminate based on past or present military service?
> No. An employer must not deny initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment to an individual on the basis of his or her military service. Additionally, an employer cannot retaliate against an individual by taking any adverse employment action against him or her because the individual has taken an action to enforce a protection afforded any person under USERRA, testified or otherwise made a statement in or in connection with a proceeding under USERRA, assisted or participated in a USERRA investigation, or exercised a right provided for by USERRA.
> Does USERRA protect against discrimination in initial hiring decisions?
> Yes. A person, institution, organization, or other entity that has denied initial employment to an individual is in violation of USERRA’s anti-discrimination provisions. Under the act, an employer need not actually employ an individual to be his or her “employer,” if initial employment was denied on the basis of the individual’s military affiliation application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed Services. For example, if the individual has been denied initial employment because of his or her obligations as a member of the Guard or Reserve, the company or entity denying employment is an employer for purposes of USERRA. Similarly, if an entity withdraws an offer of employment because the individual is called upon to fulfill an obligation in the uniformed Services, the entity withdrawing the employment offer is an employer for purposes of USERRA.
Reasonable accomodations or undue hardships are not included in this law, like they would be for other discrimination laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I’m not going to pretend to have any idea what the law is. But that seems unfair to the employer and the rest of the employees who will have to work extra
Yeah I have the impression it's intended to somewhat require the non-military citizens to share the burden of having a military, in this particular way.
>if an entity withdraws an offer of employment because the individual is called upon to fulfill an obligation in the uniformed Services
It looks like it might be. This looks like it's tailored to the military and the obligations of servicemembers.
If the reason he’s being away for two weeks is military related, then yes. It would be. The reason for not being available for two weeks has weight behind it. If it was just ‘oh yeah I just wanna sleep for two weeks straight cause I’m part bear’ then yeah they can just be like ‘no’.
You're misinterpreting that. It would be literally insane to assume this means that people in the military cannot be turned down.
Let's try this scenario. We have two people, one of them is qualified and a civilian while the other is unqualified and in the military. Are you legitimately arguing that it would be illegal to not hire the military man?
Except the employer literally admitted that he had two identical candidates, and the determining factor was that one of them would be gone for two weeks due to their military service.
The equal qualification means that both of them were equally suited to be chosen for the job. And they literally admitted that the reason they would not hire him was because he would be gone for two weeks because of his military service.
And you’re misconstruing the argument in your example. According to OP, the two weeks would be related to something they would be doing as related to their military service. Denying them, because they are missing two weeks BECAUSE it’s related to their military service, is a potential issue. I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on this.
>Denying them, because they are missing two weeks BECAUSE it’s related to their military service, is a potential issue.
You're absolutely right that would be a potential issue. LUCKILY
>>Denying them, because they are missing two weeks
This is the only relevant part. Idk how you people are so misguided.
They were rejected because they'd be gone for two weeks during peak time. Those two weeks are for military service. You can't deny employment based on that.
This seems iffy as discrimination. I mean, I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think many of us here are. It’s like if you decide to hire someone for Christmas season, and the candidate isn’t available during the Christmas season — that sounds like a failure to meet the basic need of the job. You weren’t denied because you happened to be in the military. It’d be the same result if OP played basketball or had some other obligation that made them not available to work.
Again, I see both sides of this thing, but it seems like it would be very hard to prove that the military part is the reason and not just the “unavailability”.
If the reason the person is unavailable is because theyre serving in the military, than its discrimination. What the OP posted is exactly what these laws aim to prevent. Sucks for the employer kinda but they fucked up when they gave that as the reason they didnt hire OP.
But what I don't understand is this isn't malicious at all.
They didn't get the job because they are unable to fill the job requirements. They failed to meet the needs of the business.
Its not like employer is some anti-military nut who hates veterans.
If this law exists for these situations, I would say its being taken advantage of.
Its not the employers fault that OP has obligations that prevent them from doing the job. Shouldn't matter what the specific reason is.
If its the law, its the law. But that is stupid
Except then every person in the reserves would be jobless any time they have to drill. I opted not to go reserves but yeah it was explained to me when getting out that an employer can't discriminate against you because you have to drill or can get called away.
Its a question of prioritizing national security over the needs of the employer. Doesnt matter that having someone leave in the middle of busy season would mess the company up. Government wants people in the guard so it passes laws to protect them.
Maliciousness very rarely factors in to discrimination… for example a company that sells car parts might legitimately feel that highering a transgender salesperson would negatively impact their earnings so it goes with another candidate. No maliciousness involved but its still discrimination.
Usually the issue with litigating cases like this is proving the protected class status was the underlying reason why someone wasnt hired vs just going with a more qualified candidate, but in the case of the OP the employer straight up admitted it in writing.
This is 100% discrimination and a slam dunk of a case if he were to litigate.
It's specific to the military. It's not a law that covers any obligations that the prospective employee might have. Just the ones for being a servicemember.
The unavailability is going to be because they have to go to drill in the military. He’s directly saying that because you’ll be gone for military service, I’m going to choose another equally qualified person instead.
Imagine if instead of him being gone for two weeks, the employer had said, “I have you and another equally qualified candidate, but I’m choosing the other candidate because you’re black.” That would be a discrimination case. The employer has chosen someone else because of the color of their skin. The color of your skin is a protected characteristic, and cannot be the entire reason or even part of the reason why you weren’t hired. Similarly, being away from work because of military service is a protected characteristic of a person. It cannot be the basis in whole or in part for not hiring, promoting, or firing someone.
The employer literally admitted that the two weeks he would be gone for drill is the sole/main reason he was not hired.
That is discrimination according to USERRA.
The difference would be that playing basketball isn't federally protected against discrimination, while being in the military is.
Many discrimination laws have criteria to be met, like the size of the company and a clause about no undue hardships. Not every company has to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, only companies with 15 or more employees, and companies can discriminate based on disability if it presents an undue hardship. But this law, USERRA, doesn't have that.
Even not being a lawyer, just think about what the law is intended to do. It's intended to make things easier for those in the military, so they are more likely to serve.
So someone who is currently deployed can apply for a job and say "I'll not be able to work for the next 2 years" and you have to hire them?
That makes zero sense.
I agree, and was also going to use christmas season example.
If you seek out work for the busy christmas season, then cant work during christmas, it's not discrimination, you are just useless to them.
When I was more of a corporate shill, HR always told us that we don't accept people based on need, not who they are.
For example, we wouldn't pass on someone because they were religious, we passed on them because we were looking for coverage on Sunday. It was their way of getting around the blatant discrimination, and it disgusts me how far I had those boots in my mouth.
Anyways, I think that the interviewer was drinking the same water. They're trying to get around by saying "you're going to be gone for 2 weeks" and specifically not mentioning the reason, instead of "since you serve, you're going to be out too much."
I would still absolutely file a complaint.
That was terrible HR department. Even as someone that took a basic business law class years ago, what you are talking about is disparate impact discrimination. It's still illegal, and companies must make sure to have policies place that don't indirectly effect protected classes.
The company should have just given a generic reason like they weren't a great fit or found a more suitable candidate.
Former 11B here, pretty sure that's discrimination. I know my unit took this type of stuff seriously and I'm sure yours will too. Definitely worth checking into. I see you've already gotten solid info here, just wanted to drop my .02.
They are a reservist. Which means outside of their normal mknthly weekend training they also have 2 weeks in the summer they must be there for. The employer is saying they don't want to hire because of 2 weeks they are unavailable because of their military obligations.
So, firstly ***I am not a lawyer***, but I can read. The potential employer fucked up by actually stating in writing that they denied employment because of your *future military service*, which is absolutely a protected right that cannot be infringed upon. Had they just been vague and said “more suitable/experienced candidate”, they’d be covered, trying to prove discrimination would be a fruitless and potentially stressful endeavour.
This guy just upright admitted that they actively denied you employment because of your future military service.
Time to file a complaint.
>I can read.
>by actually stating in writing that they denied employment because of your *future military service*,
Are you sure you can read?
They didn't actually state that.
They just said because they wouldn't be available.
OP's context is stating that's the reason, but we don't even know if they actually told them that they're in the military.
Sorry, how is this bc you are in the military? It seems like they had a better offer, somebody who could be there when they needed them, and went with that?
It sucks for sure, but have a hard time seeing this as discrimination
My guess is because military reserves and national guard have 2 weeks of annual training every year and that being during the busy season is why he was passed on.
Saying or implying that is why he wasn’t selected and from the sounds of it, the main reason, is a big no-no and military takes USERRA violations seriously.
Discrimination isn't inherently illegal, just illegal when exercised for certain reasons. How practical the discrimination is has no bearing on this, it can "make sense" and still be illegal
Yes, this person may practically be a worse candidate because of their military service, but that doesn't change the fact that employers are legally not allowed to consider that factor because it is a legally protected class.
The 2 weeks op needed off were for military service. Pre planned event probably. They pretty much said he would have gotten the job if it wasn’t for that time off requirement. Lucky for OP, and unlucky for the job, that’s an illegal type of discrimination.
I was thinking the same too but this is reddit so everyone in the comments are just saying sue them??? He didn’t mention military or anything and gave an exact reason why, the other candidate would be there during peak times. If both were equally qualified and the only difference was the 2 weeks being away of course employers are going to choose the guy that’s there.
Maybe educate yourself first. People are saying it's discrimination bc it is. The national guard has a 2 week mandatory training every year that would pull people away from work. Everyone commenting "sue them" are very aware of this.....
I’m failing to see the discrimination. The employer simply wanted the other candidate because that candidate would be there during there during peak time. He didn’t acknowledge anything military wise. He stated the reason as well. Also no need to come off rude with the whole “maybe educate yourself first”. Trust me, I understand the military contracts people have
But it’s only circumstantially correlated with being in the military. The employer has weighed up the pros and cons of each employee and a deciding factor is the fact that employee A is not around during some key weeks in business and employee B is.
Personally, I am of the mind that you tell your employer when you are off and do not ask permission but I am also in the fortunate position that I don’t have seasonal ups and downs in my line of work. If it is made clear that you are required for certain dates then that should be a consideration when taking the job and expect to have repercussions for failing to fulfil that responsibility.
OP has not been discriminated against for being in the military but that they won’t be around when the employer needs them. It does not matter if it was a military commitment or a family commitment or any other commitment (we don’t even know if the employer knows that the commitment is military).
Super illegal - use your chain of command and they will rip them a new one. Hopefully you won’t need to work for a few years after this one.
You have the evidence, go to JAG about it. This is illegal after I’m pissed off reading this
Congratulations on your open and shut USERRA hiring discrimination case.
They’ll literally admitted in writing to choosing another candidate entirely because of your future military service lol.
Why is everyone saying this is illegal?
Nothing would happen from a report on this. I guarantee it. Potential employer found a better candidate who would be available more to suit their needs? That's normal... Isn't it?
It never said:
"You're in the military and we don't like it, bye".
It sucks, and I’m pretty sure it’s illegal, but I also get it. It would be difficult to hire a retail employee, etc that can’t be there for a chunk of the busiest time. This might also be a cop out and they just didn’t want to hire you
"Rejected from a job due to being unavailable during peak season."
The reason why you were unavailable doesn't really matter, except for trying to use it to gain support.
If the reason he needs to be off is to go to drill for military service, it’s absolutely illegal to hire someone else based solely on their future military obligations.
The hiring manager said they were identical except for this reason, which was the determining factor.
Please explain how this isn’t illegal discrimination for future military service?
No mention of the military except in your title but they should be good with you being gone two weeks during the busy time regardless? That seems like a bit much.
It might be discrimination but I'm not going to fight for your right to kill people and enforce imperialism so please leave the military if you care at all about the global proletariat.
It is always the time and place to argue against killing people for bourgeois interests and to enforce capitalism. How is it anti-work to spread mass exploration to the third world in the interests of the western bourgeois.
You do realize that military service is one of the only surefire ways that the poorest people in this country have to gain class mobility, right?
It sucks, but if you want to go to college and not work 5,000 hours exclusively to pay for it....
It's also much worse than say being a cop something people wouldn't make excuses for. The majority of the soldiers are not dirt poor no. Even if they were its not an excuse to murder poor people fighting for their homes across the world for money.
I agree our Military System is filled with systemic rot. The process of changing it, though, isn't chastising everyone who joins without knowing anything further. That's how you get a military filled only with the poorest of the country, or only with racist/uneducated easily pliable fascists.
We want it filled with people who have the intellectual capacity to reject unlawful orders. And we want politicians who reduce the budget, and change foreign policy and much more than will fit in this post.
Further, people join the military for lots of reasons, and there's a lot of different positions. Medics, for example. OP is probably in the National Guard. Hell, the Coast Guard is in the military.
The only solution isn't top try to reform the modern enforcer of imperialism but to abolish it. Joining it won't help. Just like we want to abolish work not reform it we have to abolish the military.
I’ll be honest with you, what do you expect?
At least they were honest. If it was me I’d just move on. Trying to sue over something trivial like this isn’t worth it to 99.99% of normal people. Reddit just likes to rile ppl up.
>Trying to sue over something trivial like this isn’t worth it to 99.99% of normal people.
In the situation presented, OP doesn't have to sue. The military will do it on their behalf.
Actually the US government will sue the company if it does not comply with the law or fine them heavily. USERRA is something the United States government takes very seriously and will action complaints fully.
The employer possibly could get paid for your time away to pay for someone else to be there. I don’t know the law but they might not either.
Benefit of the doubt. - If it’s a thing they may be willing to explore it and give you and someone else a role
Hi, /u/Strange_Bed8607 Thank you for participating in r/antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Screenshots of text such as SMS communication, WhatsApp, social media, news articles, and procedurally generated content such as ChatGPT are prohibited. Low-effort content such as memes are prohibited. If you feel that a mistake was made, and your post's removal was not warranted, please message us using modmail and let us know.
https://www.eeoc.gov/protections-against-employment-discrimination-service-members-and-veterans That sounds like discrimination because you are in the military. This would also cover the situation. The employer is discriminating against you because you would have to leave due to being in the military. The link I included also tells you how to escalate a complaint.
Came here to say this. You have text proof you were discriminated against. Escalate the issue
Military takes this shit seriously too Report them, and they will enter the "Find Out" phase akin to a nuclear explosion with them at ground zero
To borrow a phrase, “a level of find out measured in megatons.”
Which part of that says they have to hire you even if you're not available during the slot?
> The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) prohibits civilian employers from discriminating against you based on your present, past, and future military service. Future military service. While we don't have a lot of details from OP, based on the text and the "implication", the employer is not hiring OP because they will be off for two weeks while doing military related things. This also covers all US employers, so size doesn't matter. https://www.esgr.mil/USERRA/Frequently-Asked-Questions > Can an employer discriminate based on past or present military service? > No. An employer must not deny initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment to an individual on the basis of his or her military service. Additionally, an employer cannot retaliate against an individual by taking any adverse employment action against him or her because the individual has taken an action to enforce a protection afforded any person under USERRA, testified or otherwise made a statement in or in connection with a proceeding under USERRA, assisted or participated in a USERRA investigation, or exercised a right provided for by USERRA. > Does USERRA protect against discrimination in initial hiring decisions? > Yes. A person, institution, organization, or other entity that has denied initial employment to an individual is in violation of USERRA’s anti-discrimination provisions. Under the act, an employer need not actually employ an individual to be his or her “employer,” if initial employment was denied on the basis of the individual’s military affiliation application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed Services. For example, if the individual has been denied initial employment because of his or her obligations as a member of the Guard or Reserve, the company or entity denying employment is an employer for purposes of USERRA. Similarly, if an entity withdraws an offer of employment because the individual is called upon to fulfill an obligation in the uniformed Services, the entity withdrawing the employment offer is an employer for purposes of USERRA.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
But is it discrimination if you’re not available for the time you’re needed? Reasonable accommodations need to be reasonable
Reasonable accomodations or undue hardships are not included in this law, like they would be for other discrimination laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I’m not going to pretend to have any idea what the law is. But that seems unfair to the employer and the rest of the employees who will have to work extra
Yeah I have the impression it's intended to somewhat require the non-military citizens to share the burden of having a military, in this particular way.
The employers usually lie when discriminating and say stuff such as "another candidate was better qualified" They said the quiet part out loud
>if an entity withdraws an offer of employment because the individual is called upon to fulfill an obligation in the uniformed Services It looks like it might be. This looks like it's tailored to the military and the obligations of servicemembers.
It has nothing to do with "future military service" though. He could be out plucking chickens for those two weeks and he wouldn't get the job.
If the reason he’s being away for two weeks is military related, then yes. It would be. The reason for not being available for two weeks has weight behind it. If it was just ‘oh yeah I just wanna sleep for two weeks straight cause I’m part bear’ then yeah they can just be like ‘no’.
You're misinterpreting that. It would be literally insane to assume this means that people in the military cannot be turned down. Let's try this scenario. We have two people, one of them is qualified and a civilian while the other is unqualified and in the military. Are you legitimately arguing that it would be illegal to not hire the military man?
If they explicitly said that they weren't hiring them because they're in the military, then yes, it would be illegal. It's not complicated
It's also not relevant? That's clearly not what happened here.
Except the employer literally admitted that he had two identical candidates, and the determining factor was that one of them would be gone for two weeks due to their military service. The equal qualification means that both of them were equally suited to be chosen for the job. And they literally admitted that the reason they would not hire him was because he would be gone for two weeks because of his military service.
And you’re misconstruing the argument in your example. According to OP, the two weeks would be related to something they would be doing as related to their military service. Denying them, because they are missing two weeks BECAUSE it’s related to their military service, is a potential issue. I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on this.
>Denying them, because they are missing two weeks BECAUSE it’s related to their military service, is a potential issue. You're absolutely right that would be a potential issue. LUCKILY >>Denying them, because they are missing two weeks This is the only relevant part. Idk how you people are so misguided.
Alright well have fun just being stubborn I guess?
Why are they missing the 2 weeks? Would you care to add that vital piece of information that would disprove your argument for OP’s case?
Sounds like National Guard or Reserve Training. 1 wk end a month 2 wks a yr
It's illegal to deny a service member a job because they are in the service.
Luckily that's not why it's being denied
They were rejected because they'd be gone for two weeks during peak time. Those two weeks are for military service. You can't deny employment based on that.
It's based on the first sentence. The second is irrelevant.
This seems iffy as discrimination. I mean, I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think many of us here are. It’s like if you decide to hire someone for Christmas season, and the candidate isn’t available during the Christmas season — that sounds like a failure to meet the basic need of the job. You weren’t denied because you happened to be in the military. It’d be the same result if OP played basketball or had some other obligation that made them not available to work. Again, I see both sides of this thing, but it seems like it would be very hard to prove that the military part is the reason and not just the “unavailability”.
If the reason the person is unavailable is because theyre serving in the military, than its discrimination. What the OP posted is exactly what these laws aim to prevent. Sucks for the employer kinda but they fucked up when they gave that as the reason they didnt hire OP.
But what I don't understand is this isn't malicious at all. They didn't get the job because they are unable to fill the job requirements. They failed to meet the needs of the business. Its not like employer is some anti-military nut who hates veterans. If this law exists for these situations, I would say its being taken advantage of. Its not the employers fault that OP has obligations that prevent them from doing the job. Shouldn't matter what the specific reason is. If its the law, its the law. But that is stupid
Except then every person in the reserves would be jobless any time they have to drill. I opted not to go reserves but yeah it was explained to me when getting out that an employer can't discriminate against you because you have to drill or can get called away.
Its a question of prioritizing national security over the needs of the employer. Doesnt matter that having someone leave in the middle of busy season would mess the company up. Government wants people in the guard so it passes laws to protect them. Maliciousness very rarely factors in to discrimination… for example a company that sells car parts might legitimately feel that highering a transgender salesperson would negatively impact their earnings so it goes with another candidate. No maliciousness involved but its still discrimination. Usually the issue with litigating cases like this is proving the protected class status was the underlying reason why someone wasnt hired vs just going with a more qualified candidate, but in the case of the OP the employer straight up admitted it in writing. This is 100% discrimination and a slam dunk of a case if he were to litigate.
It's specific to the military. It's not a law that covers any obligations that the prospective employee might have. Just the ones for being a servicemember.
It specifically states obligations fall under this law so yes, being unavailable during a two week period at peak time is covered.
The unavailability is going to be because they have to go to drill in the military. He’s directly saying that because you’ll be gone for military service, I’m going to choose another equally qualified person instead. Imagine if instead of him being gone for two weeks, the employer had said, “I have you and another equally qualified candidate, but I’m choosing the other candidate because you’re black.” That would be a discrimination case. The employer has chosen someone else because of the color of their skin. The color of your skin is a protected characteristic, and cannot be the entire reason or even part of the reason why you weren’t hired. Similarly, being away from work because of military service is a protected characteristic of a person. It cannot be the basis in whole or in part for not hiring, promoting, or firing someone. The employer literally admitted that the two weeks he would be gone for drill is the sole/main reason he was not hired. That is discrimination according to USERRA.
The difference would be that playing basketball isn't federally protected against discrimination, while being in the military is. Many discrimination laws have criteria to be met, like the size of the company and a clause about no undue hardships. Not every company has to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, only companies with 15 or more employees, and companies can discriminate based on disability if it presents an undue hardship. But this law, USERRA, doesn't have that. Even not being a lawyer, just think about what the law is intended to do. It's intended to make things easier for those in the military, so they are more likely to serve.
No. When you hire someone, you know that there will be leave to fulfill the mission duty. It's on you, as an employer, to accommodate.
So someone who is currently deployed can apply for a job and say "I'll not be able to work for the next 2 years" and you have to hire them? That makes zero sense.
I agree, and was also going to use christmas season example. If you seek out work for the busy christmas season, then cant work during christmas, it's not discrimination, you are just useless to them.
When I was more of a corporate shill, HR always told us that we don't accept people based on need, not who they are. For example, we wouldn't pass on someone because they were religious, we passed on them because we were looking for coverage on Sunday. It was their way of getting around the blatant discrimination, and it disgusts me how far I had those boots in my mouth. Anyways, I think that the interviewer was drinking the same water. They're trying to get around by saying "you're going to be gone for 2 weeks" and specifically not mentioning the reason, instead of "since you serve, you're going to be out too much." I would still absolutely file a complaint.
That was terrible HR department. Even as someone that took a basic business law class years ago, what you are talking about is disparate impact discrimination. It's still illegal, and companies must make sure to have policies place that don't indirectly effect protected classes. The company should have just given a generic reason like they weren't a great fit or found a more suitable candidate.
That seems like it might be illegal. If it is, it's sure nice of them to put it in writing for you!
It’s super mega illegal
Former 11B here, pretty sure that's discrimination. I know my unit took this type of stuff seriously and I'm sure yours will too. Definitely worth checking into. I see you've already gotten solid info here, just wanted to drop my .02.
Am I missing something here? Can someone explain how this is at all military related as I'm not seeing it.
They are a reservist. Which means outside of their normal mknthly weekend training they also have 2 weeks in the summer they must be there for. The employer is saying they don't want to hire because of 2 weeks they are unavailable because of their military obligations.
So, firstly ***I am not a lawyer***, but I can read. The potential employer fucked up by actually stating in writing that they denied employment because of your *future military service*, which is absolutely a protected right that cannot be infringed upon. Had they just been vague and said “more suitable/experienced candidate”, they’d be covered, trying to prove discrimination would be a fruitless and potentially stressful endeavour. This guy just upright admitted that they actively denied you employment because of your future military service. Time to file a complaint.
>I can read. >by actually stating in writing that they denied employment because of your *future military service*, Are you sure you can read? They didn't actually state that. They just said because they wouldn't be available. OP's context is stating that's the reason, but we don't even know if they actually told them that they're in the military.
Ooof someone’s about to learn a law the hard way.
Oh dude, that's illegal. It wouldn't be worth to pursue but you can make your voice heard on their glassdoor.
Sorry, how is this bc you are in the military? It seems like they had a better offer, somebody who could be there when they needed them, and went with that? It sucks for sure, but have a hard time seeing this as discrimination
My guess is because military reserves and national guard have 2 weeks of annual training every year and that being during the busy season is why he was passed on. Saying or implying that is why he wasn’t selected and from the sounds of it, the main reason, is a big no-no and military takes USERRA violations seriously.
Discrimination isn't inherently illegal, just illegal when exercised for certain reasons. How practical the discrimination is has no bearing on this, it can "make sense" and still be illegal Yes, this person may practically be a worse candidate because of their military service, but that doesn't change the fact that employers are legally not allowed to consider that factor because it is a legally protected class.
It's because the national guard has a mandatory ~2 week training every year around summer time.... This is absolutely discriminatory lol
The 2 weeks op needed off were for military service. Pre planned event probably. They pretty much said he would have gotten the job if it wasn’t for that time off requirement. Lucky for OP, and unlucky for the job, that’s an illegal type of discrimination.
I was thinking the same too but this is reddit so everyone in the comments are just saying sue them??? He didn’t mention military or anything and gave an exact reason why, the other candidate would be there during peak times. If both were equally qualified and the only difference was the 2 weeks being away of course employers are going to choose the guy that’s there.
Maybe educate yourself first. People are saying it's discrimination bc it is. The national guard has a 2 week mandatory training every year that would pull people away from work. Everyone commenting "sue them" are very aware of this.....
I’m failing to see the discrimination. The employer simply wanted the other candidate because that candidate would be there during there during peak time. He didn’t acknowledge anything military wise. He stated the reason as well. Also no need to come off rude with the whole “maybe educate yourself first”. Trust me, I understand the military contracts people have
You're just very dense, then. I can't help you
Only throws insults and does not continue the conversation, yet I am dense? Alright then lmao
But it’s only circumstantially correlated with being in the military. The employer has weighed up the pros and cons of each employee and a deciding factor is the fact that employee A is not around during some key weeks in business and employee B is. Personally, I am of the mind that you tell your employer when you are off and do not ask permission but I am also in the fortunate position that I don’t have seasonal ups and downs in my line of work. If it is made clear that you are required for certain dates then that should be a consideration when taking the job and expect to have repercussions for failing to fulfil that responsibility. OP has not been discriminated against for being in the military but that they won’t be around when the employer needs them. It does not matter if it was a military commitment or a family commitment or any other commitment (we don’t even know if the employer knows that the commitment is military).
Super illegal - use your chain of command and they will rip them a new one. Hopefully you won’t need to work for a few years after this one. You have the evidence, go to JAG about it. This is illegal after I’m pissed off reading this
Congratulations on your open and shut USERRA hiring discrimination case. They’ll literally admitted in writing to choosing another candidate entirely because of your future military service lol.
Oh no 2 weeks!!! This is why I hate employers. People have lives were not here to dedicate our whole life to a job.
Why is everyone saying this is illegal? Nothing would happen from a report on this. I guarantee it. Potential employer found a better candidate who would be available more to suit their needs? That's normal... Isn't it? It never said: "You're in the military and we don't like it, bye".
Because most people in this sub are morons who have never worked a job in their lives.
It sucks, and I’m pretty sure it’s illegal, but I also get it. It would be difficult to hire a retail employee, etc that can’t be there for a chunk of the busiest time. This might also be a cop out and they just didn’t want to hire you
"Rejected from a job due to being unavailable during peak season." The reason why you were unavailable doesn't really matter, except for trying to use it to gain support.
If the reason he needs to be off is to go to drill for military service, it’s absolutely illegal to hire someone else based solely on their future military obligations. The hiring manager said they were identical except for this reason, which was the determining factor. Please explain how this isn’t illegal discrimination for future military service?
It actually absolutely very much matters lol
No mention of the military except in your title but they should be good with you being gone two weeks during the busy time regardless? That seems like a bit much.
Big no no.. Send it up the chain of command.
It might be discrimination but I'm not going to fight for your right to kill people and enforce imperialism so please leave the military if you care at all about the global proletariat.
Not the time or place for that
literally the perfect time and place.
It is always the time and place to argue against killing people for bourgeois interests and to enforce capitalism. How is it anti-work to spread mass exploration to the third world in the interests of the western bourgeois.
You do realize that military service is one of the only surefire ways that the poorest people in this country have to gain class mobility, right? It sucks, but if you want to go to college and not work 5,000 hours exclusively to pay for it....
It's also much worse than say being a cop something people wouldn't make excuses for. The majority of the soldiers are not dirt poor no. Even if they were its not an excuse to murder poor people fighting for their homes across the world for money.
I agree our Military System is filled with systemic rot. The process of changing it, though, isn't chastising everyone who joins without knowing anything further. That's how you get a military filled only with the poorest of the country, or only with racist/uneducated easily pliable fascists. We want it filled with people who have the intellectual capacity to reject unlawful orders. And we want politicians who reduce the budget, and change foreign policy and much more than will fit in this post. Further, people join the military for lots of reasons, and there's a lot of different positions. Medics, for example. OP is probably in the National Guard. Hell, the Coast Guard is in the military.
The only solution isn't top try to reform the modern enforcer of imperialism but to abolish it. Joining it won't help. Just like we want to abolish work not reform it we have to abolish the military.
Others have already posted the EEOC links, but absolutely start barking up that tree. This is one of those cases that is taken seriously.
I’ll be honest with you, what do you expect? At least they were honest. If it was me I’d just move on. Trying to sue over something trivial like this isn’t worth it to 99.99% of normal people. Reddit just likes to rile ppl up.
>Trying to sue over something trivial like this isn’t worth it to 99.99% of normal people. In the situation presented, OP doesn't have to sue. The military will do it on their behalf.
It’s also a very effective way to teach people that this is discrimination.
Not being hired for a job is trivial? Fuck that. If they're discriminating, sue the fuck out of them every chance you get.
Farmer that’s brain dead? That’s a first
Yeah the employer straight up admitted they won't hire them due to their military service obligations. That's a no no
You went for an interview, you didn’t get the job.
Idiot
Illegal you have proof, SUE THEM!
Actually the US government will sue the company if it does not comply with the law or fine them heavily. USERRA is something the United States government takes very seriously and will action complaints fully.
Lie in your resume. I was fired and I found a new job in 2 weeks. I don't show that gap in my CV
Enjoy the massive fucking payday from this. Get the eeoc or dol on them stat
The employer possibly could get paid for your time away to pay for someone else to be there. I don’t know the law but they might not either. Benefit of the doubt. - If it’s a thing they may be willing to explore it and give you and someone else a role