Woman’s uniform was revealing, but her application wasn’t
October 23, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Here comes the judge, Special Report
A woman says she was fired in part for not revealing on her job application that she’d worked at a restaurant where servers wore skimpy uniforms. Heather Kearney of Des Moines, IA, was fired from her job as a criminal intelligence analyst with the state Department of Public Safety.
Her firing came shortly after her supervisors told her they were investigating her for falsification of her job application.
Kearney didn’t list her job at a Hooters restaurant on her application because it wasn’t relevant.
She says when she was interviewed for the state job she was asked if she’d left anything off her application.
Kearney claims she told the interviewer about the job at Hooters and explained why she didn’t include it on the application. The interviewer told her he already knew about the job because it came up in her employment history, according to court documents.
Kearney was hired for the position in March 2007 but was fired in August 2007.
Was there a history of gender discrimination?
A month after being fired, Kearney filed a lawsuit against her former employer for gender discrimination, saying she was turned down for promotions which ultimately went to men, despite her qualifications.
The state Department of Public Safety filed a response denying any discrimination toward Kearney. It said the official reason for her firing was failure to successfully complete a probationary period, which typically lasts six months to one year.
Her lawyer told The Des Moines Register the fact Kearney was a probationary employee isn’t going to change how they pursue the lawsuit. “Discrimination is discrimination, whether you are a probationary employee or not,” said attorney Mike Carroll.
Kearney says she was doing fine at her job. She hadn’t had any disciplinary actions, and her supervisor wrote her a letter of recommendation after she was terminated.
The lawsuit claims an investigation regarding equal pay for men and women within the department also contributed to her dismissal. Another female employee filed a complaint with the department saying she wasn’t getting fair pay compared to male employees.
Kearney says she asked about the formula to determine pay and was told she couldn’t ask about it until after the investigation was over. She says she suspects she was paid less than two men with less education who were hired at the same time she was.
When she was hired, Kearney has 12 years of military experience, a bachelor’s degree in public administration and a master’s degree in international relations with a concentration in national security affairs.
“Bottom line, I felt like I was done wrong and my character was smeared,” said Kearney. “I have a very good professional reputation in the military, and I just don’t want this to smear that.”
It may come down to a court’s decision on whether omitting her work at Hooters amounted to falsification of her job application. If she had claimed work experience that she didn’t have, this might be a more clear-cut case.
What do you think? Is an omission the same as falsification? Should it matter that she mentioned her work at Hooters in a conversation with an interviewer? Let us know your thoughts about this case in the Comments Box below.
Tags: application, gender discrimination, lawsuit, probationary period
October 24th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I interview candidates frequently that don’t have their entire employment history listed. It does come up in the interview and we cover that past experience. An omission is wrong when it is an intent to deceive or misrepresent one’s qualifications. Falsification would be listing a job one did not have or an educational degree that was not earned. Based on the facts included in this story, if it is accurate, the employer was just looking for an excuse to terminate her.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I do not believe leaving out jobs that did not pertain to the one she was applying for mattered. Would it have mattered if she had worked as an Automotive Technicial for several years?
However, she could have listed EVERY job she ever did from her 16th birthday, and then her resume would have been pages long. No one would have taken the time to even look at the resume if over 2 pages in today’s market.
She could have listed the time as Restaurant work (generic) but not been specific.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:11 am
The omission is the same as falsification. In the event she omitted experience whereby she was terminated for an underisreable reason posing a risk to the new employer, termination for the omission stated as falsification, would not be in question.
However, since she did notify the interviewer, the employer had the information necessary to ask relevant questions about that expereience as with any work history and make decision whether or not to hire.
Fact in this case is that the employer was aware of and made the decision to overlook the omission and hire her and therefore, should not have teminated her for falsification.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Omission is not the same as falsification; the information was not relevant to the job she was applying for. She also told the interviewer about Hooter’s being left out and why it was. Since this is the government they probably taped the interview. She may have a case and possibly get her job back.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:17 am
The fact that the Hooters job was omitted did not materially impact her qualifications nor any job related issue; particularly since it is her testimony that the hiring official acknowledged that job through his background check. Although the application asked if hse had omitted anything, I think the spirit of the omission is what is important. I rule in her favor.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:23 am
This omission is not relevant and should not be considered falsification.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:23 am
There was not even an omission, since she mention it to the interviewer. The company knew before they hired her about the former employer and still hired her.
I think somebody else (higher up) noted it after she was hired and did not like it, therefore preventing her to grow with the company and making the pretext of an evaluation/probationary period the excuse for the termination. I think the attorney’s point is valid of saying that discrimination is discrimination regardless of the it is before getting hired, post hire, in a probationary period or without. They way it reads in this article it is ilegal.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:23 am
An omission is not the same as falsification. If work is not relevant, it shouldn’t necessarily be included on an application. I am recently out of college and now have professional work experience, and I wouldn’t include my college jobs. I worked at Krispy Kreme – should that have an impact on if I get a job at a gym as a person trainer? No… it shouldn’t, even if they found out later. The fact that it was a job at Hooter’s makes this case worse for the employer. It could be interpreted as gender discrimination since very few males actually work there (and are not wearing the same outfits).
October 24th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Our signed statement regarding the truth of the application includes both falsification and omission as grounds for termiination. We had an employee who was desperate for work and downgraded both his experience and his technical degree. When a higher position appeared so did a new resume with the correct information. We terminated him for a false application…but subsequently rehired him for the higher level job and more pay. The local ALJ when listening to this for UI benefits said it was the strangest case with the best outcome he had ever come across.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:37 am
It seems like a few details are missing from this story. Yes, candidates often leave certain employment off their resumes. Sometimes it is because they don’t want to go back years and list irrelevent jobs knowing that potential employers don’t care what they did 10-15 years ago. Other times it is because a job was part-time employment to supplement their income but was not part of their primary career progression.
However, the article says that the information was missing from an application, not from her resume. If the application that she was filling out was to be used as the basis for a background check of some sort due to the nature of the position as a criminal intelligence analyst and it clearly stated that ALL employment was to be included then I think the employer would have a legitimate case.
So what’s the rest of the story?
October 24th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I worked in a restaurant when I was in high school. Not Hooters, but I served food and beverages. I have never had another restaurant job and have not put it on my resume for years. The experience has nothing to do with being an office manager or the human resource positions that I have held since college. If asked about it, I’m not ashamed of it, it just isn’t relevent to what I do now.
I feel she didn’t hide anything bad, just left off what was not relevent to the position she was applying for. If she were seeking a position in food service then it should have been on the resume. She was more than willing to discuss it when asked if she had held any other jobs.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:42 am
In regular circumstances, an omission on a resume would not necessarily be important.
I don’t know how the State of Iowa works, but as a Federal employee, I was required to fill out a complete application with EVERY job I had ever held. The information was needed for an intense background check. If she had a security clearance in the military, she should have known that.
I do fault the agency, however, because the interviewer did not tell her up front that the omission could cost her the position later down the line. She was honest about the restaurant work and admitted leaving it off of her application. I think the agency should have been honest in return and told her what the consequences could be because of the omission.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:45 am
An omission like this is not material unless the app said something like “all previous experience must be included”. Even so, this seems a bit frivolous. Then again, an omission is an omission. What if the conviction section had been left blank and no one caught it? I have seen that happen and people have been terminated for falsification.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Most applications state list your last 3 to 5 jobs. They do not state list your last 3 to 5 relevent jobs. Not doing so can indicate a lack of being able to follow directions. Most will gear resumes to a specific job. But the application should be filled out as instructed.
Since she disclosed in the interview that she had the job, that should suffice. Obviously the interviewer did not give her a chance to update/redo the application or even add an addendum page.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:54 am
This definitely makes a good case for background checks. If we leave it up to applicants to decide what is ‘relevant’ previous employment, they obviously would omit anywhere they had a issue with supervisor, been fired for cause, etc… it’s a slippery slope. This is why it is incumbent on we HR folks to investigate any gaps in employment, missing information, etc… Our application states “please provide complete and accurate detail of your work history” This way it is up to us to decide what is relevant, and if anything was omitted, and act accordingly.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:55 am
In every resume course I have taken, and advise given to me by supervisors (I am a hiring manager for a state government agency) is that jobs that do not contribute experience to the position being saught should not be included in a resume. Hiring personnel do not have time to read pages and pages of a resume. However, on a personal note, I usually suggest bringing to the interview a job history listing including reference contacts. This saves the employer time in the event he/she wants to move the employee to the next level for hire consideration
October 24th, 2008 at 11:02 am
She did not put it on the applicatiuon, but did notify the interviewer about it. Most applicatuions ask for the 3 past employers so sometimes some employers are not listed. However, soem people I interview dont write past employers doen, stating “I didn’t think it was important”. That is something I do not like.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I would not feel comfortable going to court on this one. Her education / degrees are impressive; had no problems during her employment; she informed the interviewer of the job (he/she could have said then — “you need to include all employement, any others you need to add?”
Unless the application clearly stated “omissions/falsefication” are grounds for termination – I beleive she has a case!
October 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am
If its something at the beginning of her career, that’s one thing; if it was mid-career, and she fudged the dates of her other jobs in order to conceal the fact she worked there, that’s something quite different.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:19 am
It is clear from the details that the employer has left out more in their reason for termination and potential wage discrimination than the employee left off her application.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:26 am
From a person who has hired and terminated many personnel in the government sector I feel very uncomfortable with her release on this position. I believe that the department personnel were covering up a pay difference and was in a position to have all pay grades reviewed whether they are male or female employees. As an Operations Manager in Iowa I have seen many companies here that perform under the same principle and release employees for issues which are bogus. I believe she is in her right to sue for discrimination and also feel that there has been no issue of falsification produced to cause her termination. I have personnaly been in the same situation and I also refrain from discusing or listing some of my previous positions because of time or based on the type of work involved. I congratulate her.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
When going through resumes, the side jobs such as retail, restaurants, etc. can actually distract from the actual applicable experience in engineering, accounting, or any other professional position. I would prefer that non-applicable positions not be listed unless it would result in a large gap in employment. I am in HR/finance and do not list my day care position or my college receptionist position. I’m not trying to hide anything, it just simply is not applicable.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
This case is so ridiculous. Her Hooters job had nothing to do with the job she was apply for, therefore, she should never have been terminated. What people won’t say, just to “justify” what they do.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:44 am
She was unjustly fired and she should receive compensation or her position back with equal pay. There are many people who leave off previous jobs on their application. Me for instance if I put every job I have ever worked at the list would take up several pages. I am 60 years old and many of the jobs I worked at were not relevent to the jobs I currenty am qualified to do.
Working for a restaurant, regardless of the kind of uniform required, is not relevent to working for the Department of Safety, unless, she was working as a waitress in the company lunchroom.
In addition, disclosing jobs that are not relevent to the job applying for is not a crime unless the job required criminal activity.
I believe the employer should also be sued for invasion of privacy, it is none of their business.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I agree that irrelevant jobs should not be included. My resume would be a pamphlet if I were to list all the jobs held in my work history. As I am a musician who has a ‘day career’ in human resources, I normally use two different resumes – one for business, one for fine arts. Neither resume contains information on the numerous restaurant and secretarial jobs held while in college.
Unless there was a compelling reason (security?) to investigate/verify 100% of paid employments over one’s lifetime, omission is reasonable.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Lesson learned ladies. If you dont want to be treated like a tramp, then dont work at a place that makes better tips off showing your body. If it’s on your W2 it should be on the application. Sorry.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
The information wasn’t relevant, so why would it need to be on an aplication.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I believe that the company’s position is very week and the courts will problably say that if failure to put a former employer on the application is serious enough to terminate someone then it should have been withing a reasonable time and not 5 months. Based on the limited information it appears they after she inquired about pay it started going down hill for her in the eyes of the company and they terminated her to get rid of a problem.
Unanswered questions that could make the case for either side are:
Is there a written statement about a propationary period or is it “typically 6 months to a year”
Have female employees had a longer propationayr period than men.
Do they have a process that indicates you are out of probation or is it discretionary?
Are other male employees paid more thatn female employees?
What did the recommendation actually indicate.
What does the handbook say.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Many good posts here.
First, the employee became aware of the “omission” during the interview. The interview should have documented it, so it is now a part of the “application” process.
Second, there is no evidence that she performed poorly in her previous job (Hooters) or in her current job. There is no logical justification to consider her previous job at Hooters relevant unless it provides evidence of how she is qualified for her position or of an underlying reason why she is not qualified. Therefore the employer relies on the “termination during probation” and their status as an at will employee. However, an employer cannot make a decision to take job action based on criteria that has no basis for employment, but does have a basis for illegal discrimination. An employer cannot refuse to hire a person because they live in a “bad neighborhood” or attended schools near “bad neighborhoods” or worked at restaurants “in bad neighborhoods.” That is because being from a “bad neighborhood” doesn’t mean you would be a bad employee.
The same goes for gender. You can’t look at an application and choose those who never worked as a “wait staff person”, no secretarial workers, no teachers, no nurses, etc. because you would be discriminating against the group that still comprises the majority of the workforce in those positions.
This employer is trying to put “lipstick on a pick” when they sell their rationale for termination.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
John – when sending out resumes do you include every job you’ve had since highschool?
And if you are interviewing for a say a VP or Engineer, would you expect to see jobs at McDonalds, Home Depot, golf course maintenance or walmart? Just because someone held a job at some point in their life and received a W2 for it, doesn’t mean it should clutter up a professional resume.
The connotation of Hooters is different than some other restaurants, but it’s not like she worked a pole at a nightclub. She was a waitress with a required uniform. I’m personally not a fan of Hooters, but it’s a public restaurant that does not have an age requirement for entry. It’s technically not a whole lot different than working at Red Robin, which I bet she wouldn’t have been fired for.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I have three resumes I use depending on the career path I am pursuing. One focuses my employment in the child care arena. The other my experieince in major events, fund raising and media and a third on direct ministry. While there is some overlap, I was told my resume is too long as it is.
What is critical to me in hiring is if the experience listed is true and valid and what kind of job the person is doing once hired. Anything else is irrelevant.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
John-
You obviously are not in HR. Your comments are very judgemental and are not relevant to this case. As an HR professional, I do not want to see every single job that an applicant has worked. Sometimes, it can be entertaining, but it is ultimately distracting. She has many years experience in the military and holds a Masters Degree, I do not care that she has worked for Hooters, nor do I want to see it on her application.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
DRitchie ihit the nail on the head. If the application stated that all employment history should be listed and she did not, the employee is at fault.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Sounds to me like the bureaucrats for Des Moines are going to cost the tax payers a bunch of money. They will take a black eye for this one. Hopefully, the citizens there will call to have the power-abusing, government higher ups fired. I’d like to see that and then take a look at their resume (I was fired for discrimination & false termination of my female subordinates). With that, he’d be lucky to get a job a Hooters!
October 24th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Did her new job require the serving of greasy chicken wings and beer to her bosses? What could this previous position unrelated to her current career have to do with anything? If she was a waitress a iHOP, and left that job off, would it be the same level of “omission”? I think not. Perhaps her superiors were afraid that she or someone else she worked with at that restaurant knew them to be regulars, sexually harassing the staff.
I moved pianos in college, worked as a bartender at banquet halls, and dug ditches as side jobs. None of that experience has anything to do with my current job.
It’s the experience she has that’s relevant that matters. This other stuff only adds to the distraction.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Folks, lets not be alarmed by my response. Applications are built for the truth. If you can’t play by the rules then go work somewhere else that doesnt have a defined process. Hopefully Hooters Girl wasnt working there within the last 10 years (as defined on the State Department Application Below). This isnt Bobs Mini Mart, this is the State Department.
It states “describing each job you held” not “describe each job you held but if you feel like leaving off Hooters because it will obviously state your character then go ahead.” Lets get real people, she was hiding the truth because she, you, and I all know that theres no room for Hooters girls in the State Department.
Describe your current or most recent job in Block A and work backwards,
describing each job you held during the past 10 years. If you were
unemployed for longer than 3 months within the past 10 years, list the dates
and your address(es) in an experience block.
However, if you fail to tell the truth or fail to list all relevant events
or circumstances, this may grounds for not hiring you, for firing you after you begin work, or for criminal prosecution (18 USC 1001).
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of my statements are true, correct, complete, and made in good faith.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Terms like Hooters Girl and tramp? Seems to me your prejudices are showing.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The work was irrelevant to the position, she told the interview and they KNEW from her background check. Omission is NOT falsification.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I think the folks are more alarmed at your characterization of a “hooter’s girl”. You putting every server that has worked in Hooters in one category is the problem. It’s like saying if you worked a job that required a dress shirt and a tie, that one has to be anal and have no personality.
Her 12 years in the military would have out trumped her Hooters time any day.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
John,
You should actually read the article before writing a comment. As I read it, “Hooters Girl”, as you so disrespectfully call her, was applying for a job with the State of Iowa’s Dept. of Public Safety, not the U.S. State Department. Nevertheless, I really don’t think that the fact that she worked at Hooters should necessarily affect her eligibility for a job with the State of Iowa or the State Department. It should be a matter of whether or not she willfully excluded information that was clearly required during the application process and whether or not that had any bearing on her worthiness to work there.
And I can pretty much guarantee you that there are State Dept. employees in DC and overseas who have much worse character flaws than choosing to work at Hooters.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Please excuse those people who feel that a job at Hooters is less suitable than a job at the State Department. Both are very viable positions and both serve the customer. I once hired a girl for a technical position working in the aerospace business when her previous jobs were dance choreorgraphy. I didnt care that she was a dancer and I didn’t care that she didn’t put the type of dancing on the resume, what I saw was an eye for detail, one who looks at things up close and can see flaws with the smallest things. I am very proud of this woman that I hired and I would hire anyone like her even if they worked at Hooters, its not the previous jobs that set your skills its the person and what they do to suceede at those jobs which set their skills. The person who has a problem with her working at Hooters only see’s her outside and the word Hooters, they need to look past the persons outside and the company brand and look at the real person and their talents.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Good Luck to those who try to better themselves…….
October 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
John my have been rejected by a Hooter’s girl at some point in time. Sure sounds a bit bitter and presumptuous of her moral integrity.
Either that, or he’s never actually been to a Hooter’s restaurant. Those that haven’t been there frequently have a biased opinion of something they’ve never actually investigated.
It’s a chicken wings and beer place, that’s it. They aren’t selling sex, they are selling sex appeal, greasy food, and tacky t-shirts.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Well said, Steve. There’s nothing more American than sex appeal, greasy food, and tacky t-shirts. Maybe “Hooters Girl” should run for public office…
October 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
It’s the American way!
Many people have a job in their past that they aren’t “proud” of. I had to clean urinals when I was 20. Now at 47, I own my own small company, and when the need arises, I……. clean urinals.
Would that disqualify me for being CEO of someone else’s company?
October 24th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
John,
In the interest of brevity and relevance her Hooters job was not listed on the application. She did not withhold any material or relevant information, and provided all pertinent information, which is the purpose and spirit of the application. Appears to me that you and the boys at the State Department are a tier down from this lady. No wonder they are getting sued. Should be a lesson learned here, but not by her.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
John needs a reality check. Hopefully he is not a hiring or HR capacity. I can’t even imagine with you would come up with after sitting and actually talking with someone. Maybe a racist comment…”no room for those people”….maybe you don’t like fat people. Or are you a typical governmental higher up too big for his britches, thinking that he is better than the rest of us.
Get your head out of your butt. The real world is calling.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
DRitche says “Well said, Steve. There’s nothing more American than sex appeal, greasy food, and tacky t-shirts. Maybe “Hooters Girl” should run for public office…”
I think that would make her over qualified for public office. How many politicians refer to their “youthfal indiscretions?”
This is not about disception or falsification. She was forthcoming about this employment in the interview.
An employer, even the state, may have problems for employees listing every job they ever worked. On the face, this would identify the ones with a long list of employers and either someone who job hopped a lot or as an “older worker” with a lot of experience. If they job hopped due to other employers discrimination or sexual harassment, and the state did not do a proper background check to verify why they left, the state can and should be sued not only by women workers, but older workers, and anyone who applied that may have been discriminated against or sexually harassed at their previous employment and chose not to pursue those cases in court.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
John always has negative posts. It is my belief that he is just posting the stuff he does in order to get responses out of the rest of you. He doesn’t deserve a reply. Just ignore his hateful posts and his attempts to get attention.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
You know what, youre right. Lets not hold hooters against the hooters girl. Lets let people fail to document their history when its clearly stated to list all jobs and lets rid bias all together.
This is a fantastic decision. Lets hire OJ Simpson to head up corporate responsibility and lets hire Michael Jackson as VP of Child Care.
No murder conviction, no evidence of molestation, both are hired and no more bias. I agree.
Set Miss Hooters girl free and lets force organizations to retain all employees regardless of what they hide and what we believe.
Singning off. Enjoy the weekend.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Regardless of which job was left off the resume, they admit to knowing about the position due to the employment history on her background check. They hired her knowing A) that she had held a job at Hooters and B) that she had left this job off of her resume or application. Then they come back two months later and fire her for something they knew before they even interviewed her. It doesn’t matter what the job was that she left off – if they knew about it before hiring her and hired her anyway, it cannot be justified as the reason they let her go.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I’d have to see her in her Hooters outfit to really be able to comment…
(now let’s see the comments on this…ha ha)
October 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I think John is just bitter. Perhaps he faked his resume and got caught, and now he is a “truth evangelist” for all HR hiring.
There’s something deeper there John – you might want to be a bit more introspective.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I would not classify this as falsification. When preparing a resume, oftentimes the candidate will have more than 1 resume anyway. Your information should be as it pertains to the position for which you are applying. A good interviewer will week out any additional information they feel pertinent during the interview. What she does outside of work is really no business of their’s. Perhaps if they paid her a salary that was equitable to the salary that they pay the men, she wouldn’t need to moonlight anyway!
October 25th, 2008 at 9:44 am
For me it comes down to three factors:
1. How many spaces for past jobs does the application have?
1b. Did she leave Hooters off her resume?
2. How long ago was her position at Hooters?
3. The Employer waited too long, 3 months max going 6 months is too long not to mentioned all she has on her side i.e. looked over for promotion for a male, then find a reason for termionation after or on the heels of a complaint of discrimination, military exp, masters, good reviews, and the kicker aletter of recommendation…..recommend settle
October 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Another thought here: Maybe employee is wrongly connecting the dots. Employee says she was “doing fine” at her job and the firing came after an investigation about falsification. We don’t know the outcome of that investigation (it may/may not be relevant to her termination); just because she alleges so doesn’t necessarily make it true. We also don’t know what the Employer had to say about her performance. Education and performance can be two different things. Despite her degrees, maybe she was just lousy at the job she was hired to do. She said she didn’t receive any discipline in her probationary period, but she may have received a poor or lackluster performance evaluation. The fact that her supervisor wrote a recommendation after termination isn’t relevant; many write a generic letter simply to help the employee find other work. Many terminated employees say they had done a “terrific,” “fabulous,” “great” job and were mystified at termination, when the reality was that they were awful, non-productive employees. As another post said, it sounds like there is much more to this story…..
October 27th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I agree with Robin Z.
The generic “restaurant work” should suffice and discussion of other, non-relevant work could be discussed at interview. I would also suspect the “equal pay” case had the employer looking for an excuse to limit females and resultant liability that may be expected..
October 27th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The employer has the responsibility to fully review an application prior to interviewing an applicant. This is done so the interviewer can ask pertinent questions which can reveal things about a person’s work history, experience, possible skills that are uncommon that may be useful in the position but not an essential skill and a persons character (how compatable would this person be in the department). If the interviewer spots a discrepancy between the information provided and the information received in the interview they have to evaluate the risk of proceding further with this applicant.
In this case the interviewer/hiring manager chose to overlook the discrepancy that occured thus invalidating any leg to stand on in future employment decisions to be made about this new employee based on the application. If the employer was truly concerned about this they shouldn’t have hired the person in the first place. Should the person have left off a job from her application? Probably not. She may have run out of employment history room in which case she should have offered a complete employment history which would have been attached to her resume.
Depending on if this was “At will employment” she may have been unlawfully terminated, but unless she (and her lawyer) can prove that there was a sex-based discriminatory practice at work which, upon inquiry, sourced the investigation into her alleged application falsification I don’t think she can actually make that claim and I think she’d loose that one. From the article above it sounds as though she made an inquiry into the pay of her fellow employees during the investigation rather than prior to the investigation. There is no mention of positions available where she applied for the promotion or transfer and was refused–she only indicated that she had been passed over. Her failure to be specific may be her downfall especially if there is a state policy which does not permit newly hired employees to apply for promotion or transfer during their introductory period.
It will depend on how the attourney’s argue the case, but I’m willing to bet that a judge would rule in the former employee’s favor, but that any requested compensation (in the form of lost pay or damages) would be the absolute minimum awarded and she will not get her job back. I’m betting the judge would just stick to the hiring decision and toss the rest. If Iowa wants to be smart about this they’ll start an internal investigation and compensation analysis of staff to be pro-active and thus provide supporting evidence in favor of the state being fair in their hiring and compensation practices.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Wow, how much can be assumed without facts.
First, we have not been advised regarding the nature of the application relevant to employment history, nor when she worked at the restaurant. If the application required listing ALL employment within last 5 years for instance, it would be falsification to fail to disclose that employment if it fell within that timeline. Furthermore, we are only told the applicant claims to have told the interviewer, we had no proof that actually occured.
Second, consider the nature of the position, criminal investigation analyst, little details matter when investigations are involved. The omission of data during hiring process is a suitable consideration relevant to suitability for such a position.
Let’s hope that before passing judgement on this one, they got all the facts!
October 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
It will be very interesting to see the judge’s ruling on this one. A grandparent used to say, “Something’s not right in the buttermilk” and too many pieces of this puzzle are missing.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Well, although there is a lot we don’t know, there are some very key facts that we do know. Since the discussion came up in the job interview and an explanation was given, I have to assume the employer considered it “non-fraudulent” or they wouldn’t have offered her the job to begin with. It seems to me that by making the offer when they had full knowledge, they were accepting her explanations and that leaves them without any foundation for then coming back and making a falsification accusation. .
October 30th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Mike,
Come on,! The posted comments are based on what informatin we do know. For starters, an ommission is not the same as falsification. And, accordingy to court documents, the interviewer acknowledged he knew about the job because it came up in her employment hisotry. No secret there. And finally, what does serving chicken and drinks to hungry people have to do with being a Criminal Investigation Analyst with the State
She spent 12 years in the military, has a masters in International Relatins with a concentraion in Security, but a push-up bra and cleavage somehow interferes with her ability to pay attention to detail. (I admire waiters and waitresses just for that reason)
We have about 500 women in our organization. Anyone want to gander a guess as to how many might be guility of this! Their case does not hold water.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Interesting case, comments even more so.
Seems to be considerable confusion regarding resume versus application, they are not interchangeable. A resume is an advertisement to get the attention of a prospective employer–say whatever you want but be prepared to substantiate. An application is a company document, if you sign that you have completed fully and accurately and that proves not to be the case, you have falsified the document–based on that, she is guilty of falsification.
However, in this case, “according to court documents” the interviewer acknowledged the Hooters job. This is the key point and should be easily verified by checking the background report and interviewer deposition, otherwise Kearny has committed perjury (if that is the case, she has a bigger problems.) Once established that the interviewer was aware of the Hooters job, the omission cannot be used as grounds for termination since the company knew of the work AND the omission prior to the job offer.
Most importantly, the charge should be retaliation, not discrimination, If discriminatory pay practices exist that will be determined in the prior pending litigation and dealt with appropriately but if it’s established that the termination process coincides with her question regarding the pay formula, it becomes a different and more expensive ballgame. The response that she could not ask about the formula until after the other litigation is over is highly suspect. I think the taxpayers of Iowa are in for a big bill.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I think this is not the real reason for firing her. There is something else. Working for Hooters is so immaterial. She had already served in the military and had a good record. My question is what does the handbook state regarding probationary periods. I was under the impression that probationary is not a good word as it implies a contract after this period has been served. I thought the proper wording was introductory period. I think she has a good case. I think the employer is in the wrong. If Iowa is an at will state, they would have been better not to give a reason than to give this lame reason.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
[...] Woman’s uniform was revealing, but her application wasn’t. Heather Kearney of Des Moines, IA, says she was fired from her job as a criminal intelligence [...]