Image via Wikipedia
Somebody asked. That would be the Consular/American Citizen Services (ACS) job at the embassy in Kabul? Um, no, did not. Did you see it?
I heard that the job was posted some 5 days or so before bidding ended, and there reportedly was no announcement that this job is out there. Bidding ended last Wednesday, which means it popped up in the big job thingy listing late last week. How do you get people to bid on a job that gets listed just days before the deadline? Some HR guy forgot to list it on time? Forgot to send out the vacancy alert email? What?
My neighbor probably could have included it in his bidlist; that is, if he knew it was there. Too late now; I think he’s going to
Niger (no, not Niger he says) one of those African posts where something is always happening.
I supposed this would not be the first time HR was inflicted by human error or was misinformed. In Farris v. Clinton, the plaintiff sued for race/gender discrimination after being denied (among other things) consideration of the POLAD position in The Hague. The Department did not contest the plaintiff’s account of the factual circumstances surrounding her requests to be considered for The Hague POLAD position. Id. At 13-15. Instead the Department explains:
“that although it had already submitted its short list in November 1999, the position still appeared by mistake on the “open assignments” list. Id. at 13-14. Because Whitlock “did not have any involvement with [the Hague POLAD] placement,” he was unaware that bidding was closed on the position when he mistakenly told the plaintiff that the position was still open. Id. at 14. In December 1999, the position again erroneously appeared as an open assignment – this time on the “hard to fill” list – because the individual responsible for posting the “hard to fill” list was misinformed. Id. Finally, the defendant notes that the plaintiff would not have been offered the position even if she had been allowed to bid on it because she was less qualified than the successful candidate. Def.’s Mot. at 10, 29-30.”
The Court opinion says in part: Here, whether the defendant’s nondiscriminatory justification is called into question depends on whether one believes its contention that the inconsistent information was the result of innocent human error or, conversely, that the defendant deliberately sought to mislead the plaintiff.