Indirect Discrimination - Is this a clear example?

antoswords

Princess Calla wrote: »

Any time I've seen job specs like that, it's usually a case that they already know who is getting the job and the spec was wrote around their skills and experience.

If anyone then queries why X got the job it can be proven that they met each requirement.

100%

antoswords

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP, I thnk that the laws about discrimination are not the right ones to use here.

I understand that there are some other employment-related laws which effectively mean that the selection criteria need to be relevant to the job. (For example, one of my pet theories is that employers should be incentivised to hire people who live close to work, so as to minimise the environmental impact of the employment. I've been told that this would be illegal, because place of residence doesn't determine suitability for the job.

But I'm not a lawyer, I cannot tell you what laws apply. And they likely would be expensive to take an action under because they are complex.

In the bigger picture, it's likely there's some factor about the likely future of the job or organisation which makes this experience desirable. Either that, or they really do want to limit the number of people who can apply. I suspect that you might be picking a difficult battle here, which ultimately you won't win.

BTW - you can apply, there's nothing stopping that. But you would do so knowing that your application would likely be disqualified as soon as they check applicants for the stated experience.

Thanks for the great reply ! I suspect they want to limit the number of people who apply, in fact i know who will get the job

Its just frustrating that this is a deliberate act to rule out certain people who are more that capable of the role.

Thanks again.

antoswords

Dav010 wrote: »

This is taken from a legal/HR site in UK:

“Can employers specify a minimum number of years' experience in job advertisements?

A requirement to have a minimum number of years' experience or previous service is potentially indirectly age discriminatory against younger candidates, who are less likely than older workers to be able to meet the requirement.

It would therefore be for the employer to justify the need for a certain number of years' experience. Certainly after the first few years, judging competencies by reference to years of experience is not reliable. This is because a great deal of experience is gained during the first few years of employment, but this then tends to "level out". There is, for example, probably little difference in competence between someone with, say, 10 years' experience and someone with 12 years' experience.

Clearly, it is quite legitimate for an employer to wish to appoint a job applicant who is suitable to fill the particular vacancy. However, instead of specifying years of experience or service, which is time-based so potentially indirectly age discriminatory, employers should specify the type, breadth or level of experience needed for the particular job and the skills and competencies required. Employers can use the person specification to assist in the drafting of a suitable advertisement.”


Op, in your case, by advertising experience required in a particular facet of the job, though you feel it is unrelated, they appear to have covered themselves. In fact your assertion in your op that it be based on the experience in the job may in fact be an example of indirect age discrimination. Is this in the public sector?

Hi Dav,

Thanks for the detailed reply, i appreciate it.

Yeah, i think they have covered themselves legally, but to me and others here is blatantly obvious what they have done in order to get the person they want.

Yes, its public service.

Cheers

randomrb

antoswords wrote: »

The advertisement contains criteria that prevents some workers with the requisite knowledge, skills, experience and attributes from applying for these positions.

Surely every job advertisement does this? Discrimination and indirect discrimination is part of Recruitment processes if we took your line of reasoning then you could never ask for fluent english as a requirement as you are indirectly discriminating against non-nationals.

Your couldn't require college level degrees as that would indirectly discriminate against travellers who statistically have lower rates of graduation.

In regard to you issue about unnecessary qualifications as far as I know there is absolutely no law about reasonable job requirements. McDonalds could ask for a doctorate in Physics to be a toilet cleaner if it wanted.

The only exception which can come into play is part-time workers v Full-time workers. if there is an internal requirement for promotion that could only be fulfilled by a full-time worker that is illegal. eg certain training days