I also disagree for the same reason.
Clearly, there was no change in the place of employment with respect to the first job.
Further, the second job would not qualify since there it cannot be (logically) claimed that there was no former place of employment since the taxpayer was already employed (at the first job, which never changed).
There is probably only a slight chance that @Vmmatch would ever be audited on this issue, but the fact that the first job never changed is somewhat of a red flag (and the "second job argument" is likely to be a loser).
