Given that nothing stops you from running a centralized Git repo for things that are candidates for audits or release. If someone uses that as their reason for not switching to Git, it indicates to me that they don't understand their requirements and/or is using it as an excuse because they don't have any real reasons.
I'd even argue that if you want more control and auditing, Git is an improvement over alternatives like Subversion, because it makes it more manageable (and so more likely to actually happen) to set up workflows with far more frequent commits and subsequent reviews by a gatekeeper. You don't need to let your lower level developers even have any kind of access to the main repository, yet you can retain full history of changes that happens before their code is approved and pushed to the main repo by a suitably anointed person.
If you're using a gate keeping process, it doesn't matter what the committers even use then. They can just push a patch to the gate keeper.
You sound pretty close-minded and relatively inexperienced if you would turn down a great career because they used something other than git. It's borderline idiotic to make such a large decision based on something inconsequential. Maybe that's okay in the Web app industry where most of the jobs are just variants of the same thing so you have plenty to filter through, but the idea of turning down a job at somewhere you've been hoping to work like NASA or Google just because they don't use a tool you like is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time.
Given that nothing stops you from running a centralized Git repo for things that are candidates for audits or release. If someone uses that as their reason for not switching to Git, it indicates to me that they don't understand their requirements and/or is using it as an excuse because they don't have any real reasons.
I'd even argue that if you want more control and auditing, Git is an improvement over alternatives like Subversion, because it makes it more manageable (and so more likely to actually happen) to set up workflows with far more frequent commits and subsequent reviews by a gatekeeper. You don't need to let your lower level developers even have any kind of access to the main repository, yet you can retain full history of changes that happens before their code is approved and pushed to the main repo by a suitably anointed person.