To wonder if this is discrimination?

[sadparttimer]

I work part time and applied for an internal job which was advertised as full time. The manager knows me and knows I am part time... they said the part time hours shouldn't really be an issue and they seemed keen to have me on their team.

Interviewed for it, seemed to go well... they then came back and said the manager above them didn't want a part time person for the role. They said they'd keep advertising the roles (there are several as the team is expanding significantly) as full time for a few more weeks but if they had no decent responses they would re-consider me.

Can this be right?

I don't see a problem - they want a full-time person, you only want part-time. The Company is entitled to recruit to suit their business needs. I don't see it as discrimination at all.

I don't know the legalities, but if they want a full time post that seems fair enough? Just as they can turn down any requests from staff to go part time. I'd have thought the way to do it would have been to offer you the job though and then you could have decided whether you were happy to go full time or could have requested part time, they'd have said no and you'd have rejected the job. Had you made it clear in advance though that you wouldn't be willing to increase your hours?

They obviously looked at if the job could be part time but it can’t, so no, not discrimination!!

this doesnt seem like discrimination, Id be a bit annoyed they didnt know what they wanted before wasting time with an interview but oh well.

It's not discrimination, it was advertised as a FT role so they need a FT person. The manager shouldn't have said 'it should be fine' without checking with the manager above them first.
If they had refused to take you further due to gender/age/pregnancy/race/disability that would be discrimination, but working PT is not a protected characteristic.

I don't see how it would be discrimination. They are allowed to say the job is full-time. Presumably they'd be willing to hire you if you were willing to work full-time.

Not discrimination. Just sounds like the manager spoke out of turn and it wasn't his final decision to make.

I don’t think it’s discrimination - it was advertised as a full time role, presumably they ultimately decided it needed to stay the way.

It COULD be discrimination - indirect discrimination.

The basic legal argument being that a requirement to work part time has a disproportionate negative impact on individuals with certain protected characteristics - the most obvious here being sex, as women are statistically more likely to need to work part time.

However; indirect discrimination can be objectively justified by an employer - if the role genuinely can’t be done part time then it probably isn’t discriminatory. A decent employer would look at other options such as job sharing, but if that wasn’t workable or was too expensive, they could justify the decision legally.

Very few claims are brought on these grounds because an employer can easily get round an argument of discrimination by justifying the business needs - if they can’t do that it would be discriminatory, but very rarely is that the case.

It could fairly easily be a part time role or a job share in my opinion, but I suppose as a large company they will find some way to say it can only be full time so I guess there's nothing I can do then...

It could fairly easily be a part time role or a job share in my opinion

Then present a business case to support your view.

It could fairly easily be a part time role or a job share in my opinion

That's really for management to decide isn't it?

No

What is considered discrimination in the workplace?
What is workplace discrimination, and what constitutes discrimination against employees or job applicants? Employment discrimination happens when an employee or job applicant is treated unfavorably because of his or her race, skin color, national origin, gender, disability, religion, or age.30 Oct 2018

Are you sure that the part time reason wasn't them politely trying to let you down gently? Not particularly constructive- but you might not have fit other requirements for the role and the interviewer was trying to spare your feelings?

... no, it's not discrimination. You can't be discriminated against for being part-time, that's not a thing. They obviously want someone full-time for it and senior management make that call.

Discrimination? 🙄

I think the original manager considered for the role as part time because they value you as an employee but after the interview, the person who makes the call said no we need full-time.

When job advertisements are made they have a set of objectives and needs from an employee that will help meet things such as targets which will drive the company's performance levels. It could be that part time will not generate the same kind of returns that full time will due to the amount of less hours being invested in the role. There is clearly a lot going on and it does not really concern you. I think you should be flattered that you were even interviewed and that they will re-consider you if a full-time applicant does not emerge.

It is not discrimination but perhaps because you were told yes one minute its fine for part time and no the next. Another point was that they did not need to be honest with you. They could have just said you were not qualified for the role or that another application was better equipped and not given the job but they were honest about it all and explained the truth.

I am sure another role will come up. I think you should be positive and take the no in a good way as they will not consider you again if you act negative and call them out accusing them of discrimination.