Respondent violated Petitioner’s veterans’ preference rights under the MVPA. He was not provided a written explanation of the reasons for his rejection for the position for which he applied. Further, he was not provided notice of his qualifying status and the option to apply veterans’ preference points to his overall score. Finally, Respondent’s hiring process violates the Act because it does not apply veterans’ preference points for the hiring determination but only for the determination of whether to interview an applicant who is a veteran. Thus, the Commissioner should require Respondent to conform its hiring practices to the MVPA and reexamine the hiring for the position for which Petitioner applied.

 

"> Respondent violated Petitioner’s veterans’ preference rights under the MVPA. He was not provided a written explanation of the reasons for his rejection for the position for which he applied. Further, he was not provided notice of his qualifying status and the option to apply veterans’ preference points to his overall score. Finally, Respondent’s hiring process violates the Act because it does not apply veterans’ preference points for the hiring determination but only for the determination of whether to interview an applicant who is a veteran. Thus, the Commissioner should require Respondent to conform its hiring practices to the MVPA and reexamine the hiring for the position for which Petitioner applied.

 

">
Primary navigation

Public & Media

    Administrative Law Archives

    This page contains all substantive, public administrative law decisions from the past seven years. To request a copy of an older decision, or a decision you believe should be public but cannot find on this page, please submit a data request. To view decisions regarding Municipal Boundary Adjustments, please visit the Boundary Adjustment Reporting System. 

    RSS feed
    5-3100-38220- Jacob R. Monnens, Petitioner, vs.City of Madison, Respondent. June 10, 2022- Respondent violated Petitioner’s veterans’ preference rights under the MVPA. He was not provided a written explanation of the reasons for his rejection for the position for which he applied. Further, he was not provided notice of his qualifying status and the option to apply veterans’ preference points to his overall score. Finally, Respondent’s hiring process violates the Act because it does not apply veterans’ preference points for the hiring determination but only for the determination of whether to interview an applicant who is a veteran. Thus, the Commissioner should require Respondent to conform its hiring practices to the MVPA and reexamine the hiring for the position for which Petitioner applied.

     

     Last Modified: 6/10/2022 Size: 0 Author: Categories: Tags:
    back to top