To think this is discrimination and want to do something?

[Cowardlycustard2]

So angry about this. I recently spent a long time on a job application, to be informed that I hadn’t been selected for interview. Can’t give too much detail as will out myself, but work in a very specialist professional area and locally there are very few of us so tend to know on grapevine what’s happening etc. I am very experienced and highly qualified in my role and matched all job spec criteria well. Have found out that a couple of people being interviewed are new graduates so don’t have experience etc. It is not a role where it would cost them any more to hire an older or experienced person it’s a fixed starting salary by the way. The application process states that age and ethnic background need to be given but “will not be used as part of selection process”. However I think my age has been used to rule me out of an interview particularly as the hiring manager knows me due to being part of a local small professional community. I am so angry but also feel that I must challenge this somehow but haven’t got a clue how to do this. I know anti age discrimination legislation exists but have never heard of anyone successfully challenging an employer on this basis in a situation like this. Grateful for any advice. Thanks.

Plexie is correct about the scoring metrics. I don't see why it should make you unpopular by asking for specific feedback on the areas covered though. Normally you decide upfront what the minimum score should be and that helps with reducing the number of people being put through to interview if all the criteria is met.

Of course the other benefit is that it enables them to easily demonstrate that they have shortlisted fairly. Which is why I say ask for that feedback.

By the way if you applied online what normally happens is that the pages with your personal details and protected characteristics do not get sent through to shortlisters but I accept that if you are familiar with a persons job history you could probably take an educated guess about who the applicant is.

But they haven't even appointed yet - this is all because you didn't get an interview. If it really is such a small field as you say locally, any action you take will put people off employing you in the future.

You don't know the other applicants so you don't know what their applications were like. You've already asked for and received feedback, and claimed that they 'have form for this' - yet you applied to them anyway?

I really wouldn't go in all guns blazing, because I think you could well be wrong, unfortunately!

I had to complete 12 supporting statements as part of the process

Surely these are then used to select the strongest candidates? You have no reason to suppose that anything more is going on than: the other candidates were better than you.

I definitely would never want to work there now but would like to do something to rattle their cage. Raise a complaint and piss them off!

It is horrible losing out on a job you want, but this attitude is self destructive and irrational.

If you came across as badly in the application (or from the hiring managers prior knowledge) as you do here then I would avoid interviewing you. I am not suggesting that you do have an attitude problem (I know I came off poorly in my last interview due to lack of practice), just that you risk appearing to. I'm also saying that blaming it on your age won't benefit you at all, whether there is some truth to the idea or not.

If it's so 'niche', is there any chance that someone who works there knows about you through other people?

Could someone have 'marked your card' in some way?

I know of people in a particular 'niche' profession and the grapevine buzzes.

I think you want to have a reason and age is what you have chosen. Not everyone will want the most experienced and thank goodness for that, not everyone has experience so if no one takes them how can they gain it? That doesn’t mean it’s becaue of your age. You seem like you want a fight though.

You can refuse age & ethnic background if you choose.

I think that you are finding it hard to accept that new graduates are a more attractive option and are grasping at straws. Unless you have proof that they age discriminated there is nothing you can or should do.

Yes the person that is hiring does know me, not really well, but because it’s a small professional community in my role, does know me. That’s why it feels personal as well I guess. Without sounding big headed I thought I had a good professional reputation. There is also a shortage of people nationally with the particular professional qualification so thought would def get interview.

I think you're right OP, you need to let it go and just accept there were stronger candidates on this occasion

It seems clear that you think something went very wrong during the interview shortlisting process. Is there no way that you can go back to them in a non-confrontational way and ask specific questions such as what the shortlisting criteria were, how you scored by comparison to the shortlisted candidates, whether there was one particular area where you failed to meet the required standard (which usually means not being brought forward for interview). In my experience, seeking detailed feedback to allow people to honestly review and work at certain shortcomings is always a good sign from a potential employee. Are you prepared for that honest self appraisal though?

Greendale I'm curious as to the extent of your experience with public sector recruitment and promotion? Can you give us an idea? Is it all related to particular sector? My experience, which is extensive, seems so completely different to yours...

It's more likely that they already know who the want for the role and your application is too strong and likely to jepordise that. The new graduates are probably just filler so it looks like they are following a fair interview process.

It's also common for people to be rejected for interview due to being 'overqualified' for a role. Employers don't want someone coming in who may feel they have nothing to learn and will be bored.

Still not right but not age related.

I work in a public sector organisation. People give their DOB on the application but this has been removed by the time the application goes forward to the team for consideration.

Aren’t they supposed to offer an interview to applicants that meet all the spec?

Yes, this can be the case. I've been in this position (involved in hiring).

It means in effect that the list of both essentials and desirables is very carefully written so that a. guidelines stating what cannot be listed as an 'essential' (to avoid discrimination) are carefully followed (hence the words 'or equivalent experience' are so often seen) and b. the desirables are also very very carefully written so that one is unlikely to be left with absolutely scores of people who technically fulfil every criterion and therefore MUST be interviewed.

If this is the case for this organisation/institution and you believe that you fulfil every listed criterion, you could indeed take it further.

Maybe the feel if it's a graduates salary that you will leave when a better offer comes along? Unfortunately no way of knowing. Unlikely to get any feedback that near on impossible even after an interview. I've been in your position it's a hard pill to swallow but it's very hard to prove it. Best of luck with the next application op. Don't let this one setback hurt you too much

We were recruiting last year for a post (nothing like the one you mentioned OP). We knew one person who had temped for us before and who had the relevant experience, we thought if she applied she would be a strong candidate. We had a number of younger applicants who put in superb application forms, CVs and other information in support of their application. The person we initially wanted to interview completed the application form with minimum effort, left some required information blank and didn't take much care with it. She didn't get the job, in fact on the basis of the application we didn't actually interview her at all, as she did not get enough ticks on the pre interview sift. Could you have taken it all a bit for granted OP?

I work in a public sector organisation. People give their DOB on the application but this has been removed by the time the application goes forward to the team for consideration.

Absolutely Harvey but OP says she's well known in a niche specialism. So that's not going to have made much difference!

OP if you absolutely believe that there is a pattern of discrimination here then you should speak to ?your union - do you have one?

Finally - you've dodged a bullet anyway it seems. What's most likely the case here is that the person managing this actively wants someone less experienced and less confident - they are looking for someone they can at best train up in their footsteps and manage easily, creating the kind of staff memeber they want. At worst, they want someone less confident and experienced who isn't going to challenge them and who can be pushed about (and isn't going to show them up with their quite possibly better skillset!). It happens. Often. Big red flag for a not great dynamic and possibly a nightmare post to work - so a. you're better off and b. it won't be because your reputation isn't good- possibly quite the opposite!

Yes the person that is hiring does know me, not really well, but because it’s a small professional community in my role, does know me. That’s why it feels personal as well I guess. Without sounding big headed I thought I had a good professional reputation. There is also a shortage of people nationally with the particular professional qualification so thought would def get interview.

If this person is actually a poor manager without confidence in her/his own abilities, it's quite likely that no, they don't want someone like you on their patch and would actively want someone they would feel more confident managing/moulding.

But - sounds like you should have got an interview.

I think the OP is being given a very hard time here, with lots of people jumping to conclusions about her being difficult, the quality of her application etc.

the part asking for age and ethnic background was part of main form but stated would not be used in process

If it wasn't an entirely separate form, used to collect anonymised data for diversity monitoring purposes which would be removed by someone in the HR department before shortlisting commenced then it's not such a leap to consider that age discrimination may have played a part in their decision making.

OP - you could submit a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act asking for confirmation of what information they hold on you and asking to see a copy of the scoring matrix and any notes from the shortlisting process specifically about you. You won't be entitled to see other candidates' scores.

Aren’t they supposed to offer an interview to applicants that meet all the spec?
No legal requirement for this, other than in the case of applicants with a disability.
If it's a single position, you probably only want to interview half a dozen candidates (basically the number you can manage in a single day), so you short list all the candidates who meet the "essential", then choose the best 6, taking into account both "essential" and "desirable".
Then at interview you choose the best. Where you run into trouble is if you choose the second best on your advertised criteria, but select them on some characteristic that you haven't advertised as being necessary or desirable, eg like being able to travel. If the top candidate has a protected characteristic, and you tell them that "it was a competitive field, and the chosen candidate was able to travel" (which you hadn't previously specified as needed for the job) then it's good evidence that you were simply finding a reason to avoid appointing the top candidate.

I think you are receiving a lot of poor advice here.

If it is public sector, you should definitely query it.

Public sector feedback on an unsuccessful application should be able to tell you which areas you fell down on in points in your supporting statement, and explain why. If at that point you feel they haven't adequately explained why you were not interviewed, you can ask for a review of the entire sift.

Maybe not age related could they just be interviewing new graduates on the basis that they can continue training them their way,maybe they have more up to date qualifications but not the hands on experience you have.

Thanks for all the replies some good ideas here. Can I politely contact them again for feedback and ask for something specific against scoring matrix etc? If anyone could suggest how I should word it I would be really grateful

Main Qualification is the same one that I have it hasn’t changed much, I have lots of extra qualifications on top and the professional registration that the new grads won’t as u need 1 year supervised practice to get prof reg.