indiejade writes "True story: I had an interview with Nasa Ames Research. A recruiter had called me up and said he had some Linux-oriented position for which they were hiring last year.
So I made it out to the interview, was interviewed by a couple of people, and alas, forced to work upon a Microsoft machine during the last part of the interview. I was then ridiculed because I couldn't remember off the top of my head how to get to the default C:\\command-prompt on a Microsoft Windows machine because I have been working almost exclusively on Unix variant machines for the past 4 or 5 years. I eventually got it, but almost felt like the interviewer put me in a position where I was made to look and feel stupid, despite the fact that the recruiter had told me that I was interviewing for a Unix-type position.
I was not hired. The recruiter told me it was because I don't have a car. (This info was NOT in the job description or requirements, and I'm pretty sure it is illegal to deny somebody employment for not owning a car — should I sue?). I suspect the real reason I wasn't hired was because I am a female. I suspect if I were to attempt to "fight it," I'd also lose because I'm female (well, maybe only during the Bush Administration's reign).
All in all, I was out almost a full day of my time, public transportation costs, and down a whole lot of hope for females in this industry.
P.S. This is the real deal Real Deal
So . . . Should and (if so) Who should I sue? The "recruiter" company or the US Government? At this point, I'm thinking the recruiter company is more liable, but just thought I'd ask for a broad opinion."
Link to Original Source