[ryanmercer]

In the case of that company, they worked with finances and it makes me a 'risk'. Apparently exercising protection that dates back to antiquity makes you undesirable.

My bankruptcy also prevents me from ever having a security clearance again as I'm considered a security risk (blackmail, my mom worked at DoD before she had to retire via disability and one of her co-workers got fired when her debt shot up post divorce and it caused her clearance to get yanked).

Nolo has an ok article about it covering both the security clearance and the issue I had https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/will-bankruptcy-affe...

>Private employers, however, aren’t constrained by a similar rule, and some people find that having a bankruptcy in their past comes back to haunt them—mainly when applying for jobs that require them to deal with money (bookkeeping, accounting, payroll, and so on).

If you go look at a lot of traditional job applications when they are asking about prior military experience and criminal history they also usually ask something along the lines of "have you ever declared bankruptcy". A bankruptcy effectively makes you a 2nd class citizen in the eyes of many companies... which is funny because a quick google search shows me a little less than 1% of the US population files bankruptcy annually which means you have a statistically significant percentage of the population walking around with bankruptcies on their record, the only people that have it worse are those with criminal convictions (about 1 in 3 adults, shockingly) so I guess I'm somewhat lucky anyway.

[pc86]

> Apparently exercising protection that dates back to antiquity makes you undesirable.

I mean it's easy to categorize it this way but I think you're ignoring the actual risks for the company. Yes, bankruptcy is a completely legal and typically very useful legal mechanism for restructuring. There's nothing ethically or morally wrong with bankruptcy or even having multiple ones in your history depending on the circumstances.

But more often than not, it shows an inability to manage ones finances and staying within a reasonable band of spending. With few exceptions, bankruptcies are typically avoidable. To quote the word risk in the manner you did diminishes the real fact that you had a finance job and had recently shown that you unable to control your personal finances.

With the litigious nature of the US, especially within the confines of employment law, it's safer for a company in that sector to outright ban employees with major financial issues than to investigate the root causes and make case-by-case judgments on whether a given bankruptcy was "okay."

> My bankruptcy also prevents me from ever having a security clearance again as I'm considered a security risk (blackmail...

This is an accurate and very reasonable concern. It's the whole reason why applicants for every sensitive job from local part-time police officer to CIA agent have their personal finances investigated. If someone has 1.5x their yearly salary in high interest debt it's going to be much easier for a malicious actor to control them.

[falcolas]

> it shows an inability to manage ones finances and staying within a reasonable band of spending

In a world^w country where being sick can put you in complete and utter financial ruin, or where buying a house you can make payments on but whose value drops precipitously resulting in a seizure of the house, I call bullshit.

There's many, many reasons in our world today that you might need to declare bankruptcy, and being unable to manage your finances is only one.

[ryanmercer]

>But more often than not, it shows an inability to manage ones finances and staying within a reasonable band of spending

You know what home economics taught me in high school? How to sew a tennis racket cover and how to make a beaded lizard keychain/zipper pull.

You know what it didn't teach? Balancing a check book, taxes, 19%+ interest rates on credit, emergency fund savings, how to deal with sudden unemployment, how to deal with sudden unexpected medical expenses.

I was paying my debts monthly, barely, that wasn't good enough for one of the lenders and they sued me in small claims. I never got the summons (apparently quite common) and they were awarded default judgement of 35% of my gross income and had my waged garnished which forced me to file.

[pc86]

I don't think anyone will argue that the US public education system is teaching its students what it should be about personal finances and money management. It's a disgrace, frankly.

> I was paying my debts monthly, barely, that wasn't good enough for one of the lenders and they sued me in small claims.

I'm sorry but there is definitely information missing here. If you were making the full minimum payment you wouldn't be sued, ever. If you were paying less than the minimum then you weren't actually "paying your debts monthly."

> I never got the summons (apparently quite common)

I can't speak to how common something like this is but you do typically need to be served with the summons, or the plaintiff needs to show some sort of proof that you received the notice (e.g. a certified mail receipt or statement from a process server that you were indeed served). But I can say it's not the first time I've heard of someone being unaware of a court date so who knows.

[ryanmercer]

>I can't speak to how common something like this is but you do typically need to be served with the summons, or the plaintiff needs to show some sort of proof that you received the notice (e.g. a certified mail receipt or statement from a process server that you were indeed served). But I can say it's not the first time I've heard of someone being unaware of a court date so who knows.

Here's just one site with many threads

https://www.google.com/search?q=sued+in+small+claims+court+n...

In my case I found out I'd been sued after the wage garnishment, oddly enough my check was 666$ that pay period which was considerably less than it should have been, I immediately told my manager, she told HR, HR pulled me into their office and informed me my wages were garnished. I then had to search the state court records to find that Capital One had sued me 3x via "bowman & heintz" and a quick google query shows it's quite common for people to have been sued, and never received a summons, by that shady 'law firm' with an alarming number of default judgements awarded because the person never knew.

If I pull up the court records for the cases they do not even state when I was served, or if I was served. Just that a hearing was scheduled, a bench trial was commenced and default judgement awarded as I failed to appear.

Welcome to life for many people.

[pc86]

I believe you, but I stand by my previous point that paying the amount due on or before the due date would have never resulted in a lawsuit, especially from a firm like Capital One. Assuming it's a credit card (ca. 2010-2012) there would have been a slew of internet notifications not to mention the mailings if you were past due. I charged off a Citi card in 2009/2010 and can say from experience I had ample opportunity to make it right, I just didn't have the funds and negotiating a charge off with Citi directly resulted in the quickest end at the cost of a big credit hit and being unlikely to ever get credit from Citi ever again.

Edit: And this is a point that you've ignored in this entire thread, which leads me to believe you were paying below the minimum payment on a credit card. This is an excellent way to get an account sent to collections and not have liquid cash available to actually pay it off. The worst of both worlds.

[phil21]

> I can't speak to how common something like this is but you do typically need to be served with the summons, or the plaintiff needs to show some sort of proof that you received the notice

I can, somewhat. I also had a similar situation (although much less serious) where I was supposedly "served" paperwork.

Basically process fraud is endemic in the debt collection "industry" - from the brief research I did years ago. I won my case mostly off this and the judge being sick of having to grant default judgement to these "pocket filers".

Some states are far worse than others due to laws such as pocket filing, etc.

The real problem is there is no real fear of punishment from a process server lying to the court. The worst I've seen happen is someone lose their job.

[mrweasel]

Wow, that's absolutely absurd. I essens what that company is saying is that their financial processes are so weak, that you alone could be a risk.

I can understand not wanting to hire you as a CFO or investment advisor, but that's about it.