Stay ready for a job change, but interviews aren't your only tool

Q. I am an experienced sales professional and am happy with my present position. However, I like to keep current with the job market and industry hiring trends and feel that I should never be too complacent. I have experienced three former employers going out of business abruptly, and I was left job searching on short notice. On my last interview, I was asked to complete an employment application while waiting to interview for the position. I declined, stating that I would like to find out more information before I actually apply. I feel that I do not want my private employment information and credit report pulled if I am just at the interview stage. Was it OK to decline completing an employment application at the first interview? I was there to gather more information and was not ready to apply for the position.

A. You are right that it is always wise to think ahead to your next opportunity, regardless of how satisfied you are with your present position. Unfortunately, you were caught in a situation of conflicting expectations; the interviewer assumed that you were a serious job applicant, while you were there to just gather information.

It doesn't hurt to stick your head out of your own office occasionally, find out what the competition is doing, learn more about the current job market, cutting-edge trends and developments in your field, and, perhaps even more important, your competitiveness and present value in the marketplace. How much would a new employer be willing to pay you? Discovering that you are significantly underpaid (or, rarely, overpaid) can be important research when it comes time to negotiate your salary with your current employer.

I do, however, think that you were being unnecessarily cautious in not completing the employment application. The employer would not automatically run a credit check at the first interview, not without notifying you, nor without having you be a serious candidate or finalist for a position. You could still withdraw your candidacy for the position after the first interview.

What I suggest you do to avoid this collision of expectations in the future is to find other ways to do some of your market research and to be selective about where you actually interview. Attending professional association meetings and seminars is an excellent way to keep current in your field and to develop network contacts. Follow-up by having individual informational meetings with some of these network contacts, to learn more about their organizations. Check job listings on some of the specialized sales sites as well as the large general job sites. Then, even if the worst were to happen, and you lose your job unexpectedly, you would have developed a good database of information and contacts.

Q. While on maternity leave, I was told that "my services would no longer be needed" at my company. I was really shocked because I found this out only about a week or so before I was scheduled to return to my job. I had been on the job just over a year before going out on leave, and always had consistently high performance evaluations. I thought that being out on maternity leave meant that my job was safe and that my company was required to hold my job open for me. Are my employer's actions against the law? What, if any, recourse do I have? Is there any way that I can get my old job back? In the meantime, am I at entitled to collect unemployment?

A. To help me answer your question, I consulted with Robert B. Gordon, a management-side attorney and partner in the labor and employment department of Ropes & Gray LLP, who explained the laws governing maternity leave.

As you may already know, the Family and Medical Leave Act grants up to 12 weeks leave, at the end of which you are entitled to return to your same or a comparable job in your company. If the company is not willing or able to do that - as yours apparently was not - your employer needs to prove that while you were on leave, it restructured its workforce such that your job no longer exists. This restructuring, however, neither can have been influenced by your use of FMLA leave nor initiated as retaliation for your having taken maternity leave.

Were you the only person laid off during the three-month period of your maternity leave, or is your layoff part of a larger downsizing? Is your employer claiming a downturn in earnings? Was your whole department eliminated? You and your attorney will want to make sure that you were not singled out to be laid off.

In addition to the laws governing FMLA, there are other laws that include provisions covering pregnancy discrimination. These laws and amendments make it illegal to discharge or refuse to employ any person on the basis of pregnancy or pregnancy-related disability. If you can support the claim that your pregnancy leave actually motivated your dismissal, perhaps you would have some grounds for a discrimination claim in either state or federal court.

If your employer is found to be in violation of the laws governing maternity leave (the FMLA), the company would be subject to civil action in federal court. A decision in your favor might result in job reinstatement as well as having your employer pay your legal fees and any additional damages that the judge awards.

I advise you to seek legal counsel from an attorney who specializes in employment law. Both the Boston Bar Association and the Massachusetts Bar Association offer free lawyer referral services to attorneys specializing in labor and employment law. Their respective websites and telephone numbers are www.bostonbar.org/lrs, 617-742-0625; and www.massbar.org/public-and-community-services/need-a-lawyer, 866-MASS-LRS.

Of course you and all of the other employees who were laid off are eligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits.

Q. I have a friend who has worked for his company for six months and is just realizing that he didn't get set up for health and dental insurance. We know he filled the paperwork out and sent it in but it still wasn't set up. Now the company is saying he has to wait until January to sign up. He is contemplating quitting and getting a new job to get insurance, because he is concerned that to go any longer uninsured is just too dangerous. Can't companies make an exception to this?

A. How frustrating for your friend, who thought he did his part to enroll in his employer's health and dental insurance plans. Quitting his job over this snafu seems a rather drastic and dramatic gesture, especially if he otherwise likes the work.

Did your friend make and keep copies of his enrollment forms? If he did, he should show the copies of his enrollment forms to his manager and to the benefits person in human resources. His completed paperwork should provide evidence of his participation in the company's health and dental insurance programs. If he doesn't have copies of his enrollment forms, he may be out of luck.

The benefits clerk may have failed to file your friend's paperwork, or may have even lost the initial paperwork. Now he or she may be trying to cover up this mistake by denying receipt of the paperwork in the first place. Unfortunately, it may disintegrate into a game of "he said, she said," with the outcome that your friend may have to wait until January to enroll in his company's health insurance plans.

If your friend is still eligible for COBRA through his last job, he could continue his health coverage that way until January, or look for another private pay insurance coverage to tide him over. He could try talking with his company to see if they would be willing to help him with these out-of-pocket payments. It wouldn't hurt for him to ask for an exception, but the company may be reluctant to agree to one, in the fear of setting a precedent. Granting an exception for him would be a noble but unlikely gesture on the company's part. The strength of your friend's case depends on whether or not he can produce any written documentation.

Q. I have recently seen several ads that say "only employed individuals need apply". Is this something new? And is this legal?

A. Just when I think that employers have become more compassionate and enlightened, I hear about something like this, some new way that employers have found to make life miserable for the unemployed. How short-sighted of these employers to eliminate at the outset any and all unemployed candidates.

What concerns me is that this may be a thinly veiled attempt to eliminate individuals who through no fault of their own, are unemployed or spend longer in the job search: older workers, individuals with disabilities, mothers returning to the workforce, recent graduates, new citizens. On the face of it, these employers are not doing anything illegal, although their intention may be discriminatory. Discrimination would be difficult if not impossible to prove.

Traditionally, headhunters in certain fields seek out only employed individuals, in deference to their clients' demands. Most employers admire a steady work history, of progressively more responsible positions. A spotty work record, with frequent gaps raises questions about the applicant's employability and ability to keep a steady job. Periods of unemployment are not uncommon and are often unavoidable. Sometimes they can be explained well in a cover letter, or in an interview - but you have to get that far in the process. You'll find other jobs to which you can apply while still unemployed.

What is important is to make sure that if you are unemployed for more than a few months, you have something that you can put on your resume to account for your time, for example, a consulting or volunteer project, courses that you have been taking to keep you up-to-date in your field, interim work. It is up to you to present yourself as a qualified professional, enthusiastic and ready for re-employment.

Roni F. Noland is a career counselor/coach in private practice. She can be reached at rfnoland@comcast.net.

E-mail questions to jobdoc@globe.com or mail to Job Doc, Boston Globe, Box 55819, Boston, 02205-5819.