Also known as: vet · veteran · veterans
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hiring preference granted to individuals who have served in the armed forces. The preference does not violate equal protection when a facially neutral statute creates a disparate impact on women without proof of discriminatory purpose.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
State officials adopt a statute giving absolute hiring preference to veterans for civil service positions. Valerie Voss, a highly qualified non-veteran woman, is passed over in favor of a less qualified veteran. She sues claiming gender discrimination. The court rejects the claim because the statute was enacted to reward military service rather than to disadvantage women.
City officials implement a veterans' preference that adds ten points to exam scores for former service members. A non-veteran female applicant ranks just below the cutoff after points are applied. She sues alleging the policy was designed to exclude women from public employment.
A state police department grants absolute veterans' preference for entry-level trooper positions. A qualified non-veteran woman is rejected despite higher test scores. She claims the policy has a discriminatory purpose against women.
County officials adopt a veterans' preference statute for firefighter hiring lists. A non-veteran woman with top scores is bypassed by several veterans. She sues, arguing the statute was enacted to limit women's access to the department.
A corrections department uses a veterans' preference that places all veterans ahead of non-veterans on hiring lists. A highly ranked non-veteran woman receives no offer. She alleges the preference was intended to disadvantage female applicants.
A transit authority grants veterans absolute priority in hiring bus drivers. A non-veteran woman with superior qualifications is passed over. She sues claiming the policy was motivated by gender discrimination rather than rewarding service.
No. A facially neutral statute granting hiring preferences to veterans does not violate equal protection merely because it has a disparate impact on women. The plaintiff must prove that the purpose of the preference was to discriminate against women rather than to benefit veterans.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must demonstrate that the statute was enacted with discriminatory intent to disadvantage women. Disparate impact alone is insufficient to establish an equal protection violation.
Supporting sources
…members, workmen's compensation awards,[^maj-25] tort claims awards, savings, private insurance, public or private pensions, veterans' benefits, food stamps, public assistance, or the "many other important programs, both public and private, which contain provisions for disability payments affecting a substantial portion…