discrmination at victoria secret

[silver163]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois

Here is my question, a friend of mine works at Victoria Secret she told me they have a job opening for janitorial work. Vacuuming, cleaning, and handling boxes. I filled out my application and waited to be called but no one called, so I gave them call and was basically told I was not qualified for the job even though my past job pretty much required me to do the exact same thing along with inventory tracking and handling mail. I asked them how exactly I didn't fit or what was wrong with my application and they said they wouldn't discuss that with me. So here is my question, do I have a case here or what?

I ask cause I know a custom suit maker here who owns couple of chain stores where they make you a custom suit but in order to do so you have to sometimes strip down to the underwear and they do hire who even sometimes do the measurements for the suit.

[cbg]

On the basis of what you have posted, no, you have no case for anything. Just because you complete an application and have done the same kind of work before does not mean they are obligated to hire you.

[wyett717]

In order for discrimination to take place, they would have to deny you employment based on some protected class (race, ethnicity, sex, creed, etc.) Your post does not indicate anything illegal whatsoever.

[silver163]

Originally Posted by wyett717

In order for discrimination to take place, they would have to deny you employment based on some protected class (race, ethnicity, sex, creed, etc.) Your post does not indicate anything illegal whatsoever.

hello

well my friend did warn me saying that they really don't hire guys. That they do what they done to me, just say not qualified and that is it.

But how can someone legitimately not hire someone but not be capable of explaining?

Does she really have to admit to discrimination? If there are no male workers at all and she is incapable of providing a specific explanation how can she be legitimate?

While I understand her is no obligation to hire I do believe when you say not quAlified that you don't have the skills and/or experience for the job but that isn't the case here as far as I see.

[cbg]

The law does not require her to give you a reason why you were not hired. Nor does the law require that what reason she does give you be truthful. For all you know, they received applications from 346 different individuals, all of whom were qualified. Surely you are not suggesting that each of them has to be hired just because they were qualified for the position.

And you have no way of knowing first, what qualifications the other applicants had (I trust you do not believe that you were the only applicant - not in this economy) or what other ideas they may have had for the position up the line that you may or may not have had the qualifications for.

[silver163]

Originally Posted by cbg

The law does not require her to give you a reason why you were not hired. Nor does the law require that what reason she does give you be truthful. For all you know, they received applications from 346 different individuals, all of whom were qualified. Surely you are not suggesting that each of them has to be hired just because they were qualified for the position.

And you have no way of knowing first, what qualifications the other applicants had (I trust you do not believe that you were the only applicant - not in this economy) or what other ideas they may have had for the position up the line that you may or may not have had the qualifications for.

wow really? it just seems like the anti-discrimination law would only function if the employer admitted in writing they are discriminating you. Just seems strange.

But the job is really simple, my friend said that all the guys who apply they just said "not qualified" as a means of not hiring them. My friend asked for the qualification and some information on the job position itself and it was nothing more than vacuuming and stacking boxes. What other qualifications would you need for that?

[wyett717]

The answers stands: you have no evidence of discrimination. There are endless reasons why they did not think you were a good match for the position, and there is nothing illegal about that.

[Zigner]

Maybe they had 346 different applications from people with substantially similar experience who are all qualified for the job. So, in order to make a choice, they decided that any application on which the writing leaned to the left would be discarded...

Or, maybe they had 346 different applications from people with substantially similar experience who are all qualified for the job. So, in order to make a choice, they decided that any application on which any of the writing dropped below the line would be discarded.

Or, maybe they had 346 different applications from people with substantially similar experience who are all qualified for the job. So, in order to make a choice, they decided that any application on which black ink was used instead of blue would be discarded.

I could go on and on...but the point is that, while each of these is (by definition) a form of discrimination, you have no proof what-so-ever that any illegal discrimination took place.

You have no case.

[mommyof4]

..and here's another thought....

Maybe they didn't want to hire a friend of an employee.

[silver163]

Well they wouldn't know I was her friend cAuse we kept that convert. The position was filled quickly. My friend who is he managers assistat said they hired a 16 year old girl who doesn't have any job experience whatsoever.

Ok, but what evidence would I need to have a solid case?

[pattytx]

Nothing you have posted even indicates that you MAY have a case. Discrimination on what grounds?

[silver163]

Originally Posted by pattytx

Nothing you have posted even indicates that you MAY have a case. Discrimination on what grounds?

I figured gender cause there are no male employees and my friend stated that all male applicants are automatically rejected for no qualifications as cover.

[ecmst12]

I would not be surprised if Victoria's Secret is a special case where being female is an integral part of the job.

[mlane58]

Originally Posted by ecmst12

I would not be surprised if Victoria's Secret is a special case where being female is an integral part of the job.

And just for yucks, how would having to be a female to fill the janitor's position be a BOQ? I would really like to hear this.

[ecmst12]

I think walking into a lingerie store and seeing male employees would put off many female shoppers. OP did not say whether the job was to be done during store hours or after close, in view of customers or not.