No, veterans are not a "suspect class" and thus the government can discriminate against them in hiring and receipt of benefits and such.

Suspect class would be like race, national origin, religion, etc. If a government passes a law that facially discriminates against a suspect class, the Court reviews it under a standard called "strict scrutiny" which forces the government to show that the law is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest - a standard which the government nearly never meets.

Other classes, gender or illegitimacy for example have an "intermediate scrutiny" standard which requires the government to show an important government interest that is substantially related to the law.

But all other classes, including age, and yes, veterans, it was reviewed under rational basis which is the lowest standard. Just requires the plaintiff to show that the government is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Government almost always wins those.

But now, I have not read this case yet, but it sounds like veterans might have been upgraded to one of the heightened scrutiny standards of review, like intermediate or strict scrutiny. Don't quote me on that, but that's my initial impression. It likely isn't that, but until I read the opinion I can only speculate.