I was contacted through LinkedIn by a hiring manager, we had an initial phone call to learn more about the role, the company, the process, and for me to tell a little bit more about myself. The process was four rounds, including the initial screening call, and an assignment. After the final round, I had received a call that they would like to move forward with me. I was told what my title would be, what team I would be on, and was even sent an email to confirm the start date I would like. I also was asked to complete a full resume outlining everything I've done in the 10 years since graduating college. All of my references were checked and called. Less than a week after the verbal offer, I received an email saying they had a few follow up questions and a Zoom call was scheduled. Apparently there was "concern" over two employment gaps on my resume, one in 2016 (we're in 2023) and a current one after being laid off from my previous job. The interesting thing is, my current gap after being laid off was discussed in three of the four interviews I had prior to receiving the initial verbal offer. It was not new information. However, on the Zoom call I was asked why I took those breaks and why I felt I needed those breaks. I am not fairly certain it is legal to ask those questions, especially after already having said it was a "personal" gap. A couple days later I received a call that they will not be moving forward with me as a candidate *after* already having been given a verbal offer. I was told there was a person that was a better fit. I asked if the gaps were the reason and was told it was a "factor." Be aware of this. This is language people use when not trying to get sued, saying something is a factor rather than an absolute reason even if it likely is. I was told there was a person who entered the process late stage and was a better fit for the role, had better domain expertise, and didn't have any gaps. Again, very careful language used. A "Product Marketing Associate" that reports to multiple different people and is the lowest level of the product marketing function shouldn't be assessed entirely by their knowledge of the industry, but rather the skills essential to the role, of which I had already proven. The job posting itself (at the time of this post) does not even have knowledge of the industry as a requirement for the role. Overall, the individual people I talked to did seem like nice people, but Veeva's process needs an overhaul and feels borderline discriminatory. Not only does life happen to people, but in today's climate where we're in a recession and multiple people have lost their jobs, I'm not sure it's right to fault people for being a whole human and having employment gaps, whether it was due to a layoff, mental health, family or just life in general. Especially when said gaps do not have anything to do with their ability to do the job well. Moreover, it's very unprofessional to suddenly be concerned about gaps so late in the game after a candidate has made it through all rounds and accepted a verbal offer to move forward. Lastly, product marketing is by nature an empathy driven discipline, it's very ironic that their process lacks it.