Age Discrimination

jamesdublin12

Have a read of this and tell me what you think. I was interviewed for a job and this is why I wasnt offered the role: I thought they werent allowed mention age??

"we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."

davo10

A lot of employers, and I count myself among them, prefer to employ new graduates who are enthusiastic/ambitious, and haven't developed bad work practices/attitude. We can guide them in the way the business works and nurture their development. If someone comes in with a sense of entitlement/bad attitude or we don't think they will buy into the team ethic, better to cut them lose now rather than waste time and money.

They effectively told you that they didn't see you as right fit for the job. Silly of them to be so honest but thems the breaks.

jamesdublin12

I didnt present with this. they emailed me to tell me that I wasnt offered the position for this reason. Surely thats discrimination on grounds of AGE... no??

hearmehearye

jamesdublin12 wrote:

I didnt present with this. they emailed me to tell me that I wasnt offered the position for this reason. Surely thats discrimination on grounds of AGE... no??

Not exactly. Without detail, you could be over qualified or have too much experience, something a young person wouldn't necessarily have. Lots of companies like people who can be molded to fit that particular company's ethos. Young or old.

jamesdublin12

then they could say we have offered to someone with less experience.
they knew my experience before the interview saying it was impressive and like an ideal person.

Surely they can say we offered the job to someone else who we felt was more suited.
Not that it was do with age... cheek!!!

hearmehearye

jamesdublin12 wrote:

"we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."

To me they're just describing the candidate they chose.

jamesdublin12

they opted for someone younger?? exactly age!

Sleeper12

jamesdublin12 wrote:

they opted for someone younger?? exactly age!

The better candidate just happened to be younger I think.

davo10

jamesdublin12 wrote: »

they opted for someone younger?? exactly age!

Also someone they see more potential in and who can grow into the job. Mentioning age wasn't clever but the jist of the reply is obvious, they saw more of what they are looking for in the other candidate. Put it down to experience and move on.

Bizarro Stormy

What they meant was: we went with someone we can get away with basically paying minimum wage to. I've seen a few jobs recently offering 20k for someone with 3 years experience. Pay peanuts...

davo10

Bizarro Stormy wrote: »

What they meant was: we went with someone we can get away with basically paying minimum wage to. I've seen a few jobs recently offering 20k for someone with 3 years experience. Pay peanuts...

Depends on the job, and if they are paying minimum and can employ someone at that rate to do the job required, what's the problem?

sadie1502

All about moola they want someone in there slightly green who would be happy with apprentice wage and someone they can mold into what they want. See it all the time where I'm working.

Aineoil

davo10 wrote: »

A lot of employers, and I count myself among them, prefer to employ new graduates who are enthusiastic/ambitious, and haven't developed bad work practices/attitude. We can guide them in the way the business works and nurture their development. If someone comes in with a sense of entitlement/bad attitude or we don't think they will buy into the team ethic, better to cut them lose now rather than waste time and money.

Depends on the person. Some young people have bad attitudes to work too.

I work with people in their mid late 20's and early 30's and their sense of entitlement knows no bounds. I would never go where they have gone or go. But they seem to get away with it.

Now at 50, I just shake my head at what they say. To be honest, there are a few that have no manners and they think they know it all.

Where I work it's the young people who don't buy into the team ethic because they know better.....

jimd2

davo10 wrote: »

Depends on the job, and if they are paying minimum and can employ someone at that rate to do the job required, what's the problem?

Very blaze there Davo. I reckon if you were out of work and people being offered €20k to do your job you wouldn't be so easy going about it. In the case of the OP it looks as if the job was advertised / sold as a bigger job.

Looking at this I am happy that I have continued to up skill over the years but that's not straightforward for everyone.

Very difficult situation for the OP but it is almost impossible to prove ageism in this case. As someone said move on but it certainly would leave a bad taste in the mouth.

NapoleonInRags

I'm surprised at the responses to be honest. It's blatant age discrimination in my view. Age is one of the nine grounds under the equality legislation.

If they said, 'we decided to hire someone less black' - would people think it was race discrimination? You bet your life they would.....

Sleeper12

NapoleonInRags wrote:

I'm surprised at the responses to be honest. It's blatant age discrimination in my view. Age is one of the nine grounds under the equality legislation.

NapoleonInRags wrote:

If they said, 'we decided to hire someone less black' - would people think it was race discrimination? You bet your life they would.....

I think you are reading it wrong. They said

jamesdublin12 wrote:

"we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."

When I read that I see we went for someone with much less experience (you are over qualified for the job) and she happens to be quite young.
Where does it say that op was too old. I'm sure they had everyone's age from cv. Can't imagine why they would bother asking her in for the interview if she was too old.

Op I'm sorry you didn't get the job. It's a crappy feeling. I'm sure that you will find one soon where the appreciate your talents.

jimmycrackcorm

hearmehearye wrote:

To me they're just describing the candidate they chose.

The Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 prohibit discrimination in employment on a number of grounds, including age. It is unlawful to discriminate against anyone in employment on grounds of age. The Acts only apply to persons above the maximum age at which a person is statutorily obliged to attend school (16 currently). However there are a number of exceptions to the general principle of non-discrimination. The Acts also provide for positive action on a number of grounds including age.

They've clearly described age discrimination simply by specifying that they chose someone younger. The problem though is that its difficult to prove unless there is clear evidence based on experience.

DivingDuck

jamesdublin12 wrote: »

Have a read of this and tell me what you think. I was interviewed for a job and this is why I wasnt offered the role: I thought they werent allowed mention age??

"we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."

I think they may have covered their asses with "much less experience who we felt could grow into the position".

They can easily say that the mention of age in this case was simply a minor wording slip-up, relating only and specifically to the final and best candidate chosen at the end of the process; that their age was incidental, and their experience level was what was won them the role. Since they mentioned this in their communication to you (and explained why this lack of experience was a preference for them-- someone with less experience will continue to be challenged/interested in the role longer than someone who has been doing it for years), I suspect this would hold up.

As others have said, hiring someone with less experience is cheaper and gives them a blank slate to work with, so is consequently often the most appealing choice to an employer. They dropped the ball by mentioning age at all, but I wouldn't go to the hassle of following up on it, personally, as I don't think the end result would rule in your favour.

Mrs OBumble

NapoleonInRags wrote: »

I'm surprised at the responses to be honest. It's blatant age discrimination in my view. Age is one of the nine grounds under the equality legislation.

I agree that it's blatant discrimination.

And if the OP wanted, they could take a case with the rights commissioner (or whatever they're called now), and might get a small payout from it.

But on the other hand, taking this case would take some time/energy that could be better spent job-hunting for an employer who's not so pure stupid as to say something like that. This may be a better use of that time/energy.


And I agree with the other posts explaining why a less-experienced candidate is sometimes a better fit. But they're just expanding the 2nd, non-discriminatory, part of the explanation the OP got.

jamesdublin12

Bizarro Stormy wrote: »

What they meant was: we went with someone we can get away with basically paying minimum wage to. I've seen a few jobs recently offering 20k for someone with 3 years experience. Pay peanuts...

Exactly... We never mentioned money in the interview and they knew my experience before an interview. Wastingvmy time of they had no intent.

jamesdublin12

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I agree that it's blatant discrimination.

And if the OP wanted, they could take a case with the rights commissioner (or whatever they're called now), and might get a small payout from it.

But on the other hand, taking this case would take some time/energy that could be better spent job-hunting for an employer who's not so pure stupid as to say something like that. This may be a better use of that time/energy.


And I agree with the other posts explaining why a less-experienced candidate is sometimes a better fit. But they're just expanding the 2nd, non-discriminatory, part of the explanation the OP got.

Exactly they mentioned age as a reason abs another reason reason was experience. But one of the reasons was age... Which was wrong

livedadream

its silly of them to phrase it like that was but i agree with other posters, they picked a candidate who just happens to be younger than the OP.

they dont say we didnt pick you because of your age or because the other person is younger than you.

people jumping up shouting discrimination are the same people who don't understand what discrimination actually is. the I know me rights and im entitled to it brigade.

let it go, they gave the job to someone their preferred and were stupid to tell you that as a coincidence that person is younger than you.

sure take a case for age discrimination but be prepared to have every ounce of your interview and experience in the organisation picked over.

they dont say they picked someone younger because thats what they wanted and that your age was a factor they say as an aside the person we selected is younger ie could be a graduate we want to develop and indoctrinate to our org.

seamus

I agree on both sides

- The wording of the response indicates discrimination based on age

- The intention was most likely to say, "You would be bored with this role, you have too much experience".

A silly misphrasing by someone who is likely quite inexperienced themselves. They should have said "junior" instead of younger.

Ultimately in terms of doing anything about discrimination, I think you'd be onto a loser. The age of the other candidate doesn't appear to have been a defining factor in their selection - rather their level of experience is the defining factor. And this is pretty clear in the response - they are young, but they were selected for the fact that they're inexperienced and will grow into the role.

What that really means is that they were way cheaper than you and the role isn't so important to the company that they need an experienced person straight away.

Mrs OBumble

livedadream wrote: »

ithey dont say we didnt pick you because of your age or because the other person is younger than you..

They said:

"we decided to opt for someone quite young ..."

There are plenty of older people who have less experience, too. But no, they wanted a young one and are blatant about it.

If they'd just picked someone with less expereince, they would have said:

"we decided to opt for someone with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."

livedadream

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They said:

There are plenty of older people who have less experience, too. But no, they wanted a young one and are blatant about it.

If they'd just picked someone with less experience, they would have said:

poorly phrased i agree but not age discrimination.

and its fierce easy to cut out the rest of the OP quote to make it suit your argument but thats not how the law works, the whole situation would be considered if OP was to make a claim.

all the applicants, all this qualifications, the difference in age between OP and the successful candidate and the rest of the people interviewed, the interview notes, the general demographic of the org and a million other things.

its not that simple, as they said, we picked someone who is this, this, this and this but is coincidentally/conveniently also younger than you.

compared to: we picked someone younger than you because old people are ****e.

Laura_A

I don't think it is blatant discrimination - its not surprising that most people who have less experience are younger.

But they clearly say it is because they found someone who better suited the role and more than likely better suited the direction the company are headed in.

Any mentioning of making claims and possible payouts - this is exactly why companies use the generic rejection template and dont give detailed feedback because people are too sensitive to wording and rejection.. People want detailed feedback but don't want the truth about why they weren't hired?

I don't think it is time wasting - for some roles there can genuinely be two options that might work for a company and the personality can swing it a lot of the time. I don't think the age was a reason it was simply a description of the person they went with. The key thing is that they decided you were over experienced so your time would be better spent trying to assess if you are under selling yourself with the type of jobs you are applying for...

L.Jenkins

jamesdublin12 wrote: »

Have a read of this and tell me what you think. I was interviewed for a job and this is why I wasnt offered the role: I thought they werent allowed mention age??

"we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."

I wouldn't worry to much about it. I was offered a role earlier this year, but upon a medical, discovering I had Psoriasis, they retracted the offer. Another potential employer with whom I applied for a contract role, told me I was too focused on permanent roles and that my marriage might be an issue or road block to an hour long commute in total per day. My CV is crammed with contracting roles.

If that is the attitude of a potential employer, then you dodged a bullet. I've brushed myself off and kept going.

livedadream

Itzy wrote: »

I wouldn't worry to much about it. I was offered a role earlier this year, but upon a medical, discovering I had Psoriasis, they retracted the offer. .

out of pure nosiness what were the grounds?

i cant see psoriasis effecting many roles...

L.Jenkins

Sleeper12 wrote: »

...Where does it say that op was too old. I'm sure they had everyone's age from cv. Can't imagine why they would bother asking her in for the interview if she was too old...

It would seem that age and experience was not explicitly mentioned, but implied, which could be misconstrued as discrimination on those grounds. Some hiring managers aren't that stupid, but they do slip up. If I were the OP, and while I said I brushed myself off and kept going, if the potential employer sent that as a mail, I would forward it as an email to someone with experience in employment law for an opinion.

stoplooklisten

I was asked this in the last 3 interviews I had, I must look really young, or really old, but I was like wtf ..."I'm not sure that's relevant..."

L.Jenkins

livedadream wrote: »

out of pure nosiness what were the grounds?

i cant see psoriasis effecting many roles...

I have psoriasis, a skin condition. They refused on those grounds. So maybe on the grounds of a disability, which is not in anyway, a disability.

L.Jenkins

stoplooklisten wrote: »

I was asked this in the last 3 interviews I had, I must look really young, or really old, but I was like wtf ..."I'm not sure that's relevant..."

It's not and they are not allowed to ask either.

livedadream

Itzy wrote: »

I have psoriasis, a skin condition. They refused on those grounds. So maybe on the grounds of a disability, which is not in anyway, a disability.

no i know what it is, sorry i was asking what did they say to you when they said we're not giving you the job, you didnt pass the medical because of your psoriasis... because...

i dunno lets say it was a food business, the skin could be aggravated by the gloves you have to wear or

it was a clean room environment and they couldnt risk you being in the overalls etc without with exasperating the problem.

or they mistakenly thought the skin might flake onto a mother boards fr something ridiculous like that...

what reason did they say for not giving you the job like? i was asking coz i cant see any reason why it would effect you doing most roles i can think of...

stoplooklisten

Itzy wrote: »

It's not and they are not allowed to ask either.

I know that, but it didn't stop them...but sure what proof would you have that they asked it?

seamus

stoplooklisten wrote: »

I know that, but it didn't stop them...but sure what proof would you have that they asked it?

Some companies might be stupid enough to document everything that was said or record interviews and save them. In which case a data protection request could force them to provide this documentation to you.

In my experience though, rigorous documentation and asking stupid interview questions don't go hand-in-hand. Companies that make a point of documenting everything also usually have sent interviewers on courses and will audit them regularly to ensure they're not being stupid.

L.Jenkins

livedadream wrote: »

no i know what it is, sorry i was asking what did they say to you when they said we're not giving you the job, you didnt pass the medical because of your psoriasis... because...

i dunno lets say it was a food business, the skin could be aggravated by the gloves you have to wear or

it was a clean room environment and they couldnt risk you being in the overalls etc without with exasperating the problem.

or they mistakenly thought the skin might flake onto a mother boards fr something ridiculous like that...

what reason did they say for not giving you the job like? i was asking coz i cant see any reason why it would effect you doing most roles i can think of...

It was a medical facility, but the role I was offered, would confine me to an office, as it was a Software Develop role.

livedadream

Itzy wrote: »

It was a medical facility, but the role I was offered, would confine me to an office, as it was a Software Develop role.

weird, poor management then. sorry that happened you but like you said you brush it off and move on...

harsh.

L.Jenkins

livedadream wrote: »

weird, poor management then. sorry that happened you but like you said you brush it off and move on...

harsh.

Oh I do, but that's not the worst that has been done or said to me. I started a role in Sligo a number of years back. I was brought into a managers office on day 1 and asked if I could request an earlier dermatology appointment to clear up my psoriasis, as it was making staff uncomfortable. I was wearing long clothing.

Day 2, I was called back into the office and let go. I didn't take them to task for discrimination. I told the now Wife, who informed her Father and the news spread like wildfire, which was not my intention, but needless to say, they saw a significant dip in business for a while and staff turnover.

2RockMountain

It does sound like very clumsy phrasing rather than actual discrimination to me. If you want further advice, you could contact Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. And if you want to make a formal, legal complaint, contact the Workplace Relations.

livedadream

Itzy wrote: »

Oh I do, but that's not the worst that has been done or said to me. I started a role in Sligo a number of years back. I was brought into a managers office on day 1 and asked if I could request an earlier dermatology appointment to clear up my psoriasis, as it was making staff uncomfortable. I was wearing long clothing.

Day 2, I was called back into the office and let go. I didn't take them to task for discrimination. I told the now Wife, who informed her Father and the news spread like wildfire, which was not my intention, but needless to say, they saw a significant dip in business for a while and staff turnover.

the best revenge is the accidental revenge hahahaa

yeah ive been asked am i married, why not? youd have to ask the boyfriend that lads chuckle chuckle...

the school i went to is well known as an all girls catholic ethos fee paying school for young ladyyyyddies... and was asked was a i practising catholic in one interview... did i think it was fair to go to a fee paying school did it give me an unfair advantage (eh wasnt my decision mate ask my dad...) thta guy obviously had a huge chip on his shoulder

most of the time i dont think people realise they are asking, sometimes their making conversation but in this day and age you are leaving yourself wide open...

most of the time i shake it off and just put it down to idiocy or inexperience but sometimes it does just happen by accident: sat in an interview a few weeks ago for a company i was consulting for the guy interviewing asks the generic opener to a women he's interview for a PA role:
him: so tell me about yourself
her:well im this age from here, have this many kids just finished a course in offcie admin etc etc
him: oh cute what age are your kids ive two myself nightmares they are!
her: oh yeah eh says their age
him: oh starting school soon busy time anyway the course you did what modules etc etc

totally harmless conversation she brought it up he asked out of interest... was shocked when i told him after he should have ignored it.


if she came back the notes are there that he asked... he'd be ****ed.

role was given to a male with no kids he had more experience and had used their internal system before.


could have been very messy.

jamesdublin12

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They said:




There are plenty of older people who have less experience, too. But no, they wanted a young one and are blatant about it.

If they'd just picked someone with less expereince, they would have said:

If was less experience experience say that abs that I was over qualified for the role. There could have been Lesa experienced people older. But they chose to say younger so age was a deciding factor and shouldn't have been.

livedadream

jamesdublin12 wrote: »

If was less experience experience say that abs that I was over qualified for the role. There could have been Lesa experienced people older. But they chose to say younger so age was a deciding factor and shouldn't have been.

to be fair they didnt say age was a deciding factor, with all due respect you are picking up on the one part of the message and not taking into account the rest of it.

yes they chose to say it and chose stupidly by saying it but that doesn't mean it was age discrimination.


"we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."

the said they opted for someone who is ''quite young'', not younger than you... it may be a coincidence that they are younger than you, quite young is subjective.


with ''much less experience'' that is a direct comparison to you.


if it was phrased: we decided to opt for someone younger than you with much less experience, because we believe young people are better at the role than people your age''

then id offer to assist you with the claim myself...

jamesdublin12

let me leave this here.
Indirect discrimination occurs when practices or policies that do not appear to discriminate against one group more than another actually have a discriminatory impact. It can also happen where a requirement that may appear non-discriminatory adversely affects a particular group or class of persons

jamesdublin12

livedadream wrote: »

to be fair they didnt say age was a deciding factor, with all due respect you are picking up on the one part of the message and not taking into account the rest of it.

yes they chose to say it and chose stupidly by saying it but that doesn't mean it was age discrimination.


"we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."

the said they opted for someone who is ''quite young'', not younger than you... it may be a coincidence that they are younger than you, quite young is subjective.


with ''much less experience'' that is a direct comparison to you.


if it was phrased: we decided to opt for someone younger than you with much less experience, because we believe young people are better at the role than people your age''

then id offer to assist you with the claim myself...

they did. they said that decided to go with someone younger. they didnt say the girl/boy that we employed was actually less experienced and younger. even at that they are mentioning age when it shouldnt be brought up.

Sleeper12

jamesdublin12 wrote:

they did. they said that decided to go with someone younger. they didnt say the girl/boy that we employed was actually less experienced and younger. even at that they are mentioning age when it shouldnt be brought up.

This is where you are getting confused. They can mention age all they want. There is no law against that. Age, young and old is a wonderful thing. They can't discriminate against age. I've yet to see anything that suggests age discrimination

Diziet

It is stupid wording, and yes, of course it is discriminatory, and would land them in hot water were the OP to make a formal complaint.'We chose another candidate' is fine, 'we chose a younger candidate' is not. It indicates that age was part of the decision making. Whether they meant it that way or not is irrelevant.

JustAThought

This is why the half of Ireland who is out looking for jobs don't get feedback. OP the role was clearly too junior for you & you didn't suite either it or ghem team you would be working in as they were probably also all young & a different mindset & at a different point & attitude in their career. I used work for a (fabous) big multinational - all young, lots of craic & going out to gigs after work & sessions - it was a serious sounding job & 'we' were systems developers, IT, product development - sounded good on paper but the place was like college - almost everyone young, just graduated or a few years out. The older people still stand out - totally lost & out of the team scene & it really affected the flow of the creative process & development process when they were so out of synch with everyone elses mindset & tried to insist on old practices & atypical behaviours & outlooks. You may have really needed or wanted this job but they are telling you in a nice way you won't fit with what they have & the job is too junior for you. That's not just a number - age - its also team fit, outlook, energy ( willingness to put with photocopying/junior role trivia & be energised & happy) and attitude - consider they've been honest , liked you or they wouldn't have been so open & honest & move on. Look for more senior roles move on & up with dignity.

2RockMountain

JustAThought wrote: »

I used work for a (fabous) big multinational - all young, lots of craic & going out to gigs after work & sessions - it was a serious sounding job & 'we' were systems developers, IT, product development - sounded good on paper but the place was like college - almost everyone young, just graduated or a few years out. The older people still stand out - totally lost & out of the team scene & it really affected the flow of the creative process & development process when they were so out of synch with everyone elses mindset & tried to insist on old pracxtices & atypical behaviours & outlooks.

Yeah, sure what would all those damned old fogies with all their years of practical experience, emotional intelligence and knowledge of how to get things done in organisations know about it anyway?

JustAThought

2RockMountain wrote: »

Yeah, sure what would all those damned old fogies with all their years of practical experience, emotional intelligence and knowledge of how to get things done in organisations know about it anyway?

Well - you said it - old fogies!!!
Quick - lets run to the UN & Human Rights Comission!

2RockMountain

JustAThought wrote: »

Well - you said it - old fogies!!!
Quick - lets run to the UN & Human Rights Comission!

I'd bet a fiver that the old fogies would know how to create a work environment that didn't depend on how many pints you drank in the pub on Friday night to do good work. But it seems that some of the younger, smaller minds didn't manage to grasp that.