Discrimanation or not?

[Sleepyhead]

You guys are missing the point.

I fully understand I can send my resume in to a company and never hear from them. (in fact that has happen many times)
Also, they can make up a reason why they didn't hire you.
ie. you need more night time, more IFR, your socks are the wrong color,etc. That's life and it happens all the time.

My point was simply this, when I called a company and asked about employment they said, " we are getting a lot of calls from furloughed pilots, are you a furloughed pilot?" I said "yes".
They said, " Sorry we don't hire furloughed pilots."
That is illegal.
Now of coarse they can take my resume and never call me.
But to say out-right they will not hire furloughed pilots is like saying, "sorry we don't hire Army pilots".

 

[A Squared]

Sigh!!!!!!....Hog, you just don't seem to be getting it:

>>>>This is a clear case of discrimination under federal law.

>>>>>>It is basic labor law that an employer can not deny you an interview if you meet the requirments for the job.

>>>>> " Sorry we don't hire furloughed pilots." That is illegal.

OK, you are obviously in need of a lesson in the law. I thought this was obvious to everyone, but apparently you missed this. In order for something to be illegal, there must be a law against it.

Example: You may really hate people who chew gum while they are flying. You may even think it ought to be against the law, but unless there's an FAR against chewing gum while flying, it isn't illegal. You can scream "it's illegal, it's illegal", beat your tiny fists on the floor and hold your breath until you're blue in the face (much like you're doing now about discrimination"), but until you can cite the "no gum chewing FAR", the rest of us will just laugh at you. (much like we are doing now)

You want to be taken seriously? Quote any Federal, State, or Local labor law which specifically or by inclusion, prohibits discrimination against furloughees. Until then, stop wasting bandwidth with your silly rant

Warmest regards and Merry Christmas

 

[TurboS7]

Business is business, all business's when they hire someone must recoup the cost of training. This includes groundschool, sim, oe, and all the other cost involved with hiring. It usually takes one year minimum to recoup this expense, to have a person leave is a high risk and useless. No one owes you a job, so unless you are willing to resign senority you are a risk. The main exception to this would be seasonal work, like in UK for the summer, they don't want you there long term and don't care.

 

[Airbus300]

Hog,
I don't have a dog in this fight, but if you have the time and money, go ahead and sue. Let us know how it all turns out. It may cost you $2500 in legal fees. If nothing else, you will get your recall in x years, and won't have to worry about burning any bridges, because they weren't going to hire you anyway.

 

[Wiggums]

Now of coarse they can take my resume and never call me.
But to say out-right they will not hire furloughed pilots is like saying, "sorry we don't hire Army pilots".

Yes, it is the same, and both reasons are LEGAL reasons not to hire someone. It's up to HR to decide who they want to hire; unless the criteria they are using is specifically outlawed they are safe.

 

[Lindy]

I'm NOT an ambulance chaser....

Here is some free advice from a licensed attorney (and a furloughed airline pilot too!!):

Can you sue?

First, the question that must be asked is what is the legal claim? One of my favorite responses to lawsuits is the following: "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

You cite discrimination. However, discrimination is specifically delineated in Federal, State, and Local laws. For example many employers will have the following at the end of applications: [sic employer] does do not discriminate based on race, religion, sex, etc.

Another area is housing, i.e., renting an apartment. Say you and your girlfriend want to rent an apartment. You cannot be discriminated against (in some locales) because you are an unmarried couple. Now, in some locales, you can be "discriminated" against because the county/city/township has some type of ordinance disallowing "un-wed" individuals from living together. Outdated? Yes. Legal? Yes.

If your attorney friend wants to bring a lawsuit on your behalf to a specific airline citing discrimination, he will need to find a statute/law/case in that jurisdiction that states a "furloughed employee" is given protection.

The ONLY special protection that I can even, albeit remotely, bring into this discussion is unemployment benefits. The U.S. House (or was it the Senate) is discussing extending unemployment benefits for an addtional 13 weeks to furloughed/laid-off airline employees. If this is paseed and your state denies you the additional 13 weeks, then you have a claim. However, the claim would be an administrative remedy vis-a-vis the state unemployment comission/agency.

If anyone has any questions, sent me a private message and I will try to assist. I hope that I helped clear up this morass of a discussion on discrimination.

And the cliff notes: Are you in a protected class? If you can answer yes, then you MIGHT have been the subject of discriminated. You must then prove a prima facie case. IF you answer no, then you haven't been the subject of discrimination.

Is it fair? Probably not. Equitable? I would have to say that it is, when looking at the "big picture."

 

[bobbysamd]

Hiring Discrimination

"Furloughed Gal" is correct. To scream discrimination you must be a member of a so-called protected class. Yeah, it sukks that a company won't interview you because you are a furloughed pilot. But furloughed pilots are not in a "protected" class. One example of people who are in a protected class are those with physical handicaps (Americans with Disabilities Act). Also age (Age Discrimination in Employment Act). I'll go to the grave believing the commuters wouldn't hire me because I was near forty. I can prove it empirically. At the time I was applying the commuters were hiring people nearly half my age with the same type of flying experience as me but with far fewer quals in terms of certificates and time. Also, the age-60 rule has withstood dozens of challanges.

Something else to consider is you have to jump through all kinds of hoops before you can bring suit. You have to go through the federal EEOC and maybe your state's EEOC. Then, proving up an employment case is tough. All a company has to say is it did not believe you were qualified for the job, as preposterous as it may seem.

Let me recommend a book on employment law. "Every Employee's Guide to the Law," by Lewin G. Joel, III, ISBN 0-679-75867-4. It's on bn.com and amazon.com. This book is well written and well documented. It deals primarily with your rights on the job but also discusses job and hiring discrimination.

 

[Lindy]

Thank YOU

OOOpsssss.....I forgot the ADA and the age discrimination issues.......The age-sixty rule hasn't caught my attention (personally) because I hope I can retire before that time....and
If you are claiming ADA and a pilot, well, isn't that an oxymoron?? (Only coffee w/ sugar, not cream, does that qualify under the ADA Bobby??)

Seriously, I can think of better things to do than complain about the fact that I am alive (cf. to the many individuals from 09-11) and cannot find an employment position flying.

Let me digress....tonight on the local news, they televised a phone number to find individuals who will help "shut-ins" (read elderly w/o the support of family) to plow/shovel drive-ways and walk-ways in the area. (Can you say lake-effect snow???)

I can think of at least 12 ways to volunteer to keep one busy (while collecting unemployment AND searching for aviation employment).

I am not trying to be rude to the original poster, however, I am grateful every day that I wasn' t the aircraft out of Boston on 09-11 that flew into the WTC, as I was scheduled to fly that day out of BOS (on another 121 carrier....).

It's called PERSPECTIVE.

We each have our own and it changes on a daily basis.....

 

[bobbysamd]

ADA

Nice post, counselor. Don't forget "groundless and frivolous" in the Answer to Complaint.

I recall reading some article years ago in Career Pilot magazine about some pilot who attempted to use the ADA as a claim for relief against an airline that didn't hire him. This person needed vision correction, as do many of us, including yours truly, and claimed he wasn't hired for that reason (I recall that Delta required its pilots to have 20/20 or better on their date of hire). Apparently he theorized that his vision correction was a disability which placed him under the ADA. Novel idea, but it failed.

No, it is not fair that some places won't hire furloughees. But, you can't force a company to interview you. Look at it this way. If it boils down to that, do you really want to work for that company, even in the short term?

Just another two-center.

 

[kilomike]

Well said, bobbysamd.

Hog, think about it. Would you want to work for a company that refuses to hire furloughees or worse use frivolous excuses not to hire people? Good luck with your job search. I hope things get better for everyone in the New Year--speedy recalls and new flying jobs for those who were looking for work 9-11 or before.

It's a real shame that pilots have to put up with so much BS from employers. I've been reading the posts about how poorly American Flyers and some of the other schools pay their flight instructors. Shame on those schools! (ie. charging 45.00hr while paying pilots 6.00hr! Greed at its worst.)

 

[bobbysamd]

Subjective employment criteria

Thanks, Kilomike.

All employers impose subjective, personal criteria on applicants. These "criteria" are mysterious. Even if you meet or exceed the quals for a job on paper you are not guaranteed an interview. Aviation is not the only industry in which this happens.

A few years ago I wanted to better myself. I was underpaid, working too many hours, and desparately wanted a better situation (sounds like aviation, doesn't it? ). I had built up enough experience to be a legitimate applicant for a better job.

A big-time lawfirm where I live was advertising for a paralegal in my speciality. I was slightly weak in one area but exceeded all their other quals. I faxed in my resume and cover letter. A few weeks later I received a rejection letter which said I didn't quite meet their qualifications. I thought, "huh?" I scratched my head but finally shrugged my shoulders after dealing with similar nonsense during my aviation days. I received plenty of similar letters when I was in the commuter airline job market.

Keep reading - this gets better.

A few weeks later, the same lawfirm ran the same ad. I sent in my resume again with an update cover letter restating my interest in the job and setting forth clearly how I either met or exceeded their quals. Same response as above. I'm a little miffed by now.

A couple of more weeks pass. The lawfirm runs the same ad. I repeat the above procedure. I receive the same response. Now, I am more than miffed.

I decided I had nothing to lose, so I called the recruiter at this lawfirm. I identified myself and she remembered my three apps. I stated that I met or exceeded their quals and asked straight-out why they wouldn't interview me. She first said they had lined up a person to start the job twice and each time the person would back out. I reiterated that I met or exceeded each of their quals. She hems and haws. Finally, she tells me they had "problems" in the past with my current lawfirm. I remembered that this partner may not have liked my attorney. He may not have respected my firm. I asked myself, what difference did it make they had "problems" with my current firm. How did that reflect on me personally?

I gathered that this firm questioned my abilities. Well, isn't that the purpose of an interview? This firm certainly could have given me a technical interview to determine my abilities. Or could it be that the firm had some other type of individual in mind for the position instead of a late-40s former pilot, quals notwithstanding? Use your imagination to figure out what I mean. In other words, I felt that I should have at least been given an interview because I met their minimum quals. I wasn't. Not that many paralegals practiced in my speciality, so I am positive there was a small applicant pool. The place used some mysterious proprietary criteria to reject me.

Hope the foregoing non-aviation experience lends perspective to this discussion.