Woman revealed all, her resume didn’t: Should she be denied position?
January 22, 2009 by Shane BorerPosted in: Contract disputes, Discrimination, Special report
Resumes are supposed to reveal a lot about a candidate, but this employee claims she was fired for not mentioning she worked at a restaurant featuring skimpy uniforms.
Heather Kearney, a former criminal intelligence analyst at Iowa’s Department of Public Safety, says she was terminated for falsification of her job application. Kearney had worked for several years at Hooters, a restaurant chain where servers wear tight t-shirts and revealing shorts.
When she applied for her analysts position at DPS, Kearney said she omitted her position at Hooters on her resume because her experience there wasn’t relevant to the new job. However, she did mention her job as a server during her job interview.
Kearney has filed a lawsuit against the department claiming gender discrimination. Two men with less education were hired at the same time as Kearney, yet she’d been passed up several times for promotion. (Kearney has a bachelor’s degree in public administration, a master’s degree in international relations and 12 years of military experience under her belt.)
In court, the trial will come down to whether Kearney’s omission is the same thing as falsification. What do you think? Is leaving a position off of a resume the same thing as lying about it, or should Kearney have included the position on her resume? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Tags: Gender discrimination, Job application, Promotion, Resume
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Any applicants applying for a specific job or position need not include past experiences or matters that are not relevant to the position being applied for. She has every right to shield her personal information that could be construed as derogatory even though it has nothing to do with the job under consideration. Besides, her former job as a server was legitimate although some might consider it immoral, but it’s not illegal. Even a current potential presidential cabinet member who did not pay his prior years’ income taxes was not considered a tax evader and is still a good contender for the position. She deserves an apology and a return-to-work offer and a good promotion.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
How can working at Hooter’s be considered “Immoral” – give me a break! Many of us have been servers to pay our way through college, and normally all restaurants, bars, etc require uniforms!
So, give her back her job, compensate her for the “time off” and give her the promotion she deserves and has earned…
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
What a waste of court time!!! This should not even be an issue. Who cares if she worked at Hooters to get through school. I promise there are people in more powerful positions that have done far worse to get where they are.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Working at Hooters was not relevant to the job she was applying for so therefore it was not necessary to include it on her resume. She should be given her job back and reconsidered for any promotions she was passed over for.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
So when did getting a job to make money to get you to your next job become a crime. Even if she decided not to put it in the resume because she thought she wouldn’t get the job, she had many other great experiences (Education and Military) that would have far over looked working at Hooters. It sounds like they were looking for a way to loose that employee.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
ok, so she worked at hooters. stupid concept for a restaurant in my opinion. but i wonder, were there men involved in passing her over for a promotion? and, if so, have any of them ever been to a Hooters restaurant? if they have then i fail to see how penalizing her for working at an establishment they might have frequented is anything but sex discrimination.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
She deserves the job. It is indicated that she has truthfully included all relative experience on her resume, and has not committed any action that does not discredit this experience. As such she is entitled to her job and promotion.
A resume is expected to be truthful but may not be complete. It is a sales pitch for a job. Any employer thinking that a resume is a life history should be the one that is fired for incompentance. Even a job application does not need to disclose every past employment but must include accurate dates of employment for those listed. If the interviewer sees a missing period of time, it is his perogative to query about it and why it was omitted. If they did not it is an ommission on the part of the interviewer not the applicant. She is entitled to the job, the promotion, and punitive compensation for the employers discrimination against her.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
She deserves the job. Her employer has no basis to state that she fasified her resume. All she had to do is list her experience relevant to the job at hand. Personally, I would’ve hired her since she had the guts to talk about it during the interview.
Unfortunately, the idiots that made the decision to not hire her, or the ones who got the job, probably frequent Hooters, but not for the burgers and wings.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
In Iowa showing any part of your body between your knees and elbows is immoral.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Of course it is easy discuss a supposed wrong. If the story reported, which is her version of the story, is 100% accurate then she was wrongfully terminated. Omission does not constitute falsification.
However, I doubt very seriously this is the whole story. All too often, a terminated employee will make claims in a lawsuit in an attempt to get a settlement versus the cost of defending such a case. My guess is this story was taken from the claims of the lawsuit filed by her which is worthless without additional information.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Thank you! to thomas. Incorrect statement to Mike. Spellcheck to DaveW. Excellent comparison to Noli.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
What a waste of time & resources–as well as shooting themselves in the foot by hiring inferior people.
Can’t be ‘falsification” since her resume almost certainly did not claim to be ‘complete and accurate.’
She didn’t hide it, she mentioned it in the interview. So it isn’t even an omission. Leaving information off of one part of a package of information (arguably what all of her application materials including the interview is,) but including it elsewhere in the same package is not omission.
The only relevant part of that job to her new position would be ‘demonstrated ability to show up on time.’
Might as well not hire because her years of military service undoubtedly included training to kill humans.
We have to assume that in these questions the information given to us is accurate, since ANY story can be inaccurate and totally change the decision.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Omission is not falsification. She should be given a return-to-work offer and a good promotion.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I agree with CCS. Unfortunately, it has been my observation that employers who are trying to “get rid” of an employee for whatever reason attempt to use lying on the application as grounds for dismissal, thereby sidestepping unemployment. Although this article talked about falsifying a resume, it could be that the employer is reaching by including the resume as part of the application. It’s really not a waste of court time in my opinion, because employers should be held to using legitimate findings and not personal vendetta – as I suspect may be present in this case.
January 24th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Would this same logic appy to a previous Arthur Andersen staff acoountant would may have been an auditor on Enron?
January 24th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Did you read the article? It says she was hired, at the same time as two lesser educated males, and then passed up for promotions and terminated.
I would never expect an applicant of that age (obviously past her twenties with the schooling and military experience) to list every job they ever had. I am not interested that someone waitressed, did telemarketing, etc in their high school/college years if it is not relevant to the position they are currently seeking. Do I care if they babysat children in junior high when they are 35 and it is not relevant?
I think that she has every right to sue if she was not considered for a promotion and her work was adequate for the promotion.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
If she worked “several years” at Hooters it would likely have been a part time job during school or after hours. An unexplained gap in her resume of that length would have caused more discussion than for her to just “mention her job” during the interview. She was hired and subsequently terminated apparently after some length of time, since she had been passed over for promotion several times.
I agree with Thomas – there is more to the story. Unfortunately this situation may have been the result of sloppy documentation of the real problem or a new supervisor trying to make chages too fast. Whatever the cause, I agree the HR department failed to give proper guidance during the termination process. I don’t see how the reason for her termination is valid.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I read this that she was hired, then latter let go because she falsified her resume. I’m thinking she was probably let go for other reasons that we don’t know about. Since she mentioned working at Hooters during the interview process, and they they went ahead and hired her, I don’t believe that is the real reason she was let go.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:46 am
She should not list the Hooters job on her resume since it is irrelevant to the position she applied for.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:18 am
This is just absurd…of course she didn’t list a job as a server at Hooters when applying for a criminal intelligence job, it has nothing to do with the position she was applying for. If my resume included all the positions I’ve had it would be like 5 pages. You only include the work experience that is relevant to the position you are interviewing for.
And it’s not like working at Hooters is criminal, immoral, or wrong in any way.
I hope she wins her lawsuit!
January 26th, 2009 at 8:59 am
The article indicates ommision on the resume. My understanding is that the actual signed application is what is the legal document, not the resume. There also could have been some sort of “morals” clause requiring disclosure, but they didn’t indicate that. As it is, I wouldn’t expect an applicant to include all irrelevant experience in their application- in fact, I’m frequently dumbfounded when I do see it. I ask, “Why is she telling me this?”
January 26th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Her previous employment history has absolutely nothing to do with the current job. What does working for Hooters have to do with criminal intelligence analyst position? It has been my past experience to only list experience related to the job you are applying for? The only reason to be denied a position would be if she weren’t qualified for it, it appears that someone in the Company thought less of her and needed to find an escape goat. I hope she wins the case against them, should they stick to their BS story of her falsifying her resume.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I’m sure things are probably slow in Iowa during the winter time, but common now! I could see an issue here if a prior position was relatively current and directly related to the position of application, but this doesn’t sound like that. Reinstate her position, give her some remuneration for the insult, and quit wasting public dollars!!!! Jerry H
January 26th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
On the surface, the “verdict” is obvious, but anybody who has worked in corporate America even for a short time knows there is probably soooo much more to this story. But sex sells, so that’s what the article is peddling. But in reality, as both a supervisor and a subordinate, I’ve seen lotsa games being played, so this article is like most – you need way more information (which admittedly would be too much dry information for most folks to consume) to make any kind of real decision.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
No, leaving a position off your resume’ is not the same as falsifying your resume’. Especially, if the position was not relevant to the position for which you are applying. We are all taught to that resume’s should be a summary of your work and education experience and skills. Including every position you’ve ever had is not required.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
This is about who makes the decisions in the company. Sometimes even if you have an excellent credential on your resume, it’s about how the upper management will treat you.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Working at Hooters was not relevent to the job Heather Kearney was applying for at the time, so no I don’t believe it is necessary to disclose that type of information, unless Iowa’s Department of Public Safety intended on having Heather dress up in a little mini skirt and waitressing for them. I honestly believe she has a case here especially, since she was passed up twice to men with less education and experience.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I wonder how many of those managers who decided she should be fired have eaten at Hooters in the past year? Maybe they should all be fired for their “immoral behavior”.