GIVING PREFERENCE TO VETERANS

Few would argue that, all things being equal between two prospective employees, employers should give preference to the hopeful who served under this nation's flag.

After all, military veterans sacrificed for this country, and why shouldn't they be given the edge in jobs they are qualified to perform, particularly government jobs. Many states have statutes that outline hiring practices biased in favor of veterans. Illinois is one.

But a recent court ruling there threatens to take the state's hiring practices beyond the law's good intent.

The ruling came in the case of Stephen Denton, an Army veteran who applied for a management position with the Illinois State Police. Denton received a grade of "A," the highest rating possible, from the state agency that tests applicants for jobs in state government. A non-veteran, also with an "A," was hired.

Although the non-veteran was judged "superior to all other candidates," Denton appealed the case to the Illinois Civil Service Commission. He claimed that under state veteran-preference laws he should have been hired. The commission rejected his claim, as did the Sangamon County Circuit Court.

And for good reasons. Under Illinois' hiring system, veterans automatically are awarded extra points on state exams. They also must be interviewed before non-veterans, and agencies that hire non-veterans over veterans must first clear the decisions with Central Management Services. So the channels assuring veterans get preference already are in place.

But the appellate court concluded the system fails to give veterans the preference the law intends. Beyond that, the appellate court ruled that Denton's "rights" were violated when he was passed over for the state police job. The court concluded that veterans must be given "absolute preference" over non-veterans.

But what the law really intends to do is to give preference -- not absolute preference -- to veterans by weighting the state exam in their favor as well as with the other policies that favor veterans. If absolute preference were given, one could imagine an applicant for a state job who has no qualifications asserting his "right" to get the job over a qualified, but non-veteran, applicant.

It's not difficult to argue in favor of a system weighted in favor of those who served. But for a panel of appeals court judges to extend the law beyond its intent -- thereby creating new law -- is a dangerous precedent.

Perhaps Denton will realize he's better off without the job. He should know a government that gives him an unfair advantage over more qualified job applicants might under other circumstances give his job to a less-qualified "oppressed minority" with the same "absolute preference" bequeathed by black-robed jurists.