When it was introduced, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 caused something of a kerfuffle within the recruitment industry.
Don’t get us wrong, it’s not that the industry was reluctant to admit that ageism was a problem. The vast majority of recruiters will be able to tell stories of attitudes towards both older and younger candidates pre-2006. The intrigue surrounding this legislation had little to do with the industry wanting to be able to discriminate - but it was more a case of concern as to what the ramifications of the law would be in practice for recruiters.
This week, there’s been an interesting case going through the courts. We’ve looked long and hard for some internet resources to back us up on this story - but we can’t find any, so you’ll just have to trust that we’re well connected enough and interested enough to be able to bring you this news first.
The case involves a claimant (who we believe to be female, and in her late thirties) who has taken action against 12 accountancy recruitment companies on the grounds that they discriminated against her on the basis of her age alone. The discrimination relates to the claimant applying for a number of jobs on-line, all of which were asking for a “newly-qualified accountant”. The claimant says that whilst (as a qualified accountant) she had the expertise and skills to these jobs, she was rejected by each recruitment company. The claimant was therefore able to argue that when a recruitment company is asking for a “newly-qualified” accountancy, they’re effectively asking for candidates of a particular age, which is illegal.
Now, the cynics out there might argue whether this was a genuine legal claim, or purely profiteerring on behalf of the claimant. We’ve heard a little rumour that that’s more planned by the same claimant - and no doubt it’s potentially quite a little earner (£100,000 per claim is what we’ve heard).
The good news is that the judge presiding over the case ruled in favour of the one recruitment company that we have definitive news of. This particular company were lucky (or clever) to some extent that when they rejected the candidate, they made no mention of the “newly-qualified” stipulation.
The bad news is that a good number of the recruitment companies who faced action settled out of court.
So what does this mean? Is this an admission of guilt by those who settled, or is there other conclusions that we can draw? Is it right to ask for a “newly-qualified” person? Is it right to advertise for a “graduate” any more? Why were the recruitment company culpable and not the end client?
There’s absolutely no doubt here at Idealpeople that the legislation introduced last year is good news. But the issues surrounding advertising are at best confusing and at worst verging on the ridiculous.
Enjoy this? Subscribe to the blog for e-mail updates here.
Idealpeople are an equal opportunities employer, and never discriminate against anyone on any grounds. We do not ask candidates for their date of birth, the sexual orientation, religion or gender. If you’d like to know more, register with us here.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Ben Hobbs // Apr 26, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Living abroad and being able to “look-in” at situations like these in the UK, It really does bring to light how ludicrous things like this are.
An employer should be able to hire and advertise to hire anyone they want, they will in the end after all make the final hiring decision based on the candidates merits and the how that person will fit into the organisation.
It’s dangerous territory, how far away is the UK from legislating that a company with x employees needs to have y number of over 50 year old, or women etc…
Take a hypothetical situation - An internet company is looking for a fairly junior accountant (they aren’t making much money yet). The Managing Director is 24 years old and all the other employees are of similar age, the MD wants to keep the company young and energetic.
Are you as an agency going to send the CV through of a 55 year old qualified accountant just because he’s (over) qualified and will work for the salary offered? Will you get sued if you don’t? He may have all the skills required, be fluent in web skills but at the end of the day why can’t youth be a pre-requisite.
Here in Asia it’s very common to see advertisments for staff that state “must be under 25 and attractive/presentable”. I don’t see whats wrong with that, if thats what the employer wants then thats the person they will end up hiring anyhow - regardless of how many 55 year olds turn up to interview.
On the flipside, I’m sure there are companies that would prefer more mature applicants - perhaps its a more serious work environment, or everyone in the company is quite old. I see nothing wrong with stipulating an age requirement in advertising for job roles.
Whats next, Skillism? Someone crying that they weren’t offered the job because they didn’t have the skills required.
My final comment is that age is a part of who and what you are, whether you like it or not. My skills and work ethic have changed considerably because of getting older - in some ways positive and some negative. Nevertheless that is a big part of what I could (and could not) offer to potential employers.
2 Nidgy // Jul 15, 2008 at 6:09 pm
There’s no point arguing with the legislation - it’s the law and it would be a brave employer indeed who openly flaunted it. It was brought in to stop yet another negative recruitment practice and in-job age discrimination - which remains rife.
I do not agree that there are occupations where age is a Genuine Occupational Requirement. The legislatiors had the option to include a GOR for age in the legislation and did not do so.
It would be a strange employer indeed who would turn down an older , experienced job-hunter with all the requisites, prepared to start on a junior salary, purely on the basis of age.
Employers who appreciate what is happening to demographics in the UK in particular and the western world in general will be anxious to ensure that they are using positive recruitment and in-job human resource policies.
Leave a Comment