Hey there,

I have a question. I work part-time for State University (made up name, of
course). Recently SU announced a full-time position in its job bulletin
that I qualified for. One of the requirements stated on the bulletin is
that applicants must be a university employee, which I am. So I applied. I
was later told that my application had been rejected because according to
one employee handbook (that does not cover my classification of employee),
only full-time employees may apply for jobs that are announced as open to
all university employees.

My question is this:

Since the announcement said it was for all university employees and the
definition for all university employees was not in the announcement but in
an employee handbook that does not cover my classification of employee (and
thus I've never seen it before), is the university legally obligated to
accept my application (since they acknowledge that I have met all other
requirements)?

Sam,

I'm confused by your claim that the university "rejected" your
application. It sounds as if they accepted your application, reviewed it and
decided that you did not meet their requirements.
Are you trying to argue that the University is required to use your
definition of "all University employees"? You may have an chance with this
since the handbook definition is pointlessly exclusionary and your
definition of "all" meaning all makes far more sense than their definition
of "all" meaning all full-time. Of course you need to be sure that you were
rejected for the reason that you state.
But what do you want to do? I don't see how raising this issue except in
the most diplomatic fashion will advance your application to the next level
in the selection process. And, if you do move your application along there
are many other hurdles and no guarantee that you will in the end that you'll
be hired.

Good luck,
Dave M.

David,

Yes, that is my arguement. I have written verification that that is the
reason.

What I wanted to do is to raise their awareness that 1) as a higher
education institution they can't write what they mean, and 2) their hiring
practice creates a disparate impact on minority candidates.

This may be irrelevant now, because I was told that part-time employees are
not employees at all (despite our paying taxes at both federal and state
levels), thus we are not covered by the university's affirmative action
plan, thus no discrimination can occur when internal postings are denied to
our more diverse group of employees. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Sam K.

"David Martel" <marte005@hostingstorm.net> wrote in message
news:w2M_a.418$f15.56859@newsread1.prod.itd.earthl ink.net... Sam, Are you trying to argue that the University is required to use your definition of "all University employees"? You may have an chance with this since the handbook definition is pointlessly exclusionary and your definition of "all" meaning all makes far more sense than their definition of "all" meaning all full-time. Of course you need to be sure that you
were rejected for the reason that you state. But what do you want to do? I don't see how raising this issue except
in the most diplomatic fashion will advance your application to the next
level in the selection process. And, if you do move your application along there are many other hurdles and no guarantee that you will in the end that
you'll be hired. Good luck, Dave M.

Most universities have a definition of "internal applicant" which requires you
to have worked for 1000 hours in the past year. However, if your college truly
did fail to specify a definition--- and it doesn't necessarily have to be
specified on the announcement itself-- than perhaps the default value is that
an internal applicant is anyone who is on the school's payroll (no matter how
little they worked.)

BUT there is another problem. Colleges, like most other employers, are not
required to even interview any applicant in particular, let alone hire him or
her. They are not allowed to discriminate against certain classes of
applicants, but they are allowed to discriminate against individuals. Just
because you can apply, that doesn't mean they have to seriously consider your
application.


*****
Tim Horrigan <horrigan@aol.com>
*****