Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Is this Ageism? (Job Interview)

103 replies

ladylovesmilktray · 03/02/2021 16:21

I recently interview for a job and just got this emailed response.

Thanks for interviewing with the team earlier this week for the above position. Unfortunately on this occasion we've decided to go with someone else for this role.

Although the team were really impressed with both your experience and the ideas you mentioned (particularly in regards to XXX), we've decided to go with someone who is more of a younger, up and coming voice which meets certain strategic organisational goals for us.

I am annoyed I ever went for the job and wish they hadn't shortlisted me in the first place though I imagine this could have been classed as discrimination.

AIBU to think this is overt age discriminination? Or I am just feeling sour grapes (and like a bitter old hag)?

OP posts:
1Morewineplease · 03/02/2021 17:12

If you feel up to this... maybe take it further.
That does sound like discrimination.

VinylDetective · 03/02/2021 17:13

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

Yes, you've definitely got a case against them on age discrimination. There was a well-publicised case recently about a middle-aged man who was overlooked for a job at a London hospital (possibly St. Thomas's?) because they didn't think he'd fit in (as the team was mainly female and younger). He won his case and got compensation too.
He got about £8k - must be the most lucrative interview ever.
AlwaysLatte · 03/02/2021 17:13

I'm surprised they put in writing that they favoured someone younger!! I didn't think that was allowed these days.

ShemShem · 03/02/2021 17:13

@AlwaysLatte

I'm surprised they put in writing that they favoured someone younger!! I didn't think that was allowed these days.
They didn't say they prefer someone younger

They said younger voice. That's very different.

EarringsandLipstick · 03/02/2021 17:16

@ShemShem

more of a younger, up and coming voice which meets certain strategic organisational goals for us.

This is what the OP received.

They don't mean her actual voice ! 😂

They are using the word 'voice' here to mean 'input', the input of a younger person.

It's extremely clear, and it's definitely discrimination.

anniegun · 03/02/2021 17:17

That does sound like a very winnable age discrimination case to me. Check your home insurance for legal costs cover. If it there they will often take on a case for you that is highly likely to succeed which will be a cheap way to pursue this

Livingtothefull · 03/02/2021 17:17

@LolaSmiles

It's either deliberate age discrimination and theyve admitted it, or they decided to appoint someone who was cheaper, probably a bit earlier in their career and someone who they can see has the training potential (which can make sense to appoint someone earlier in their career and train/shape for the role and organisation long term goals) but whoever wrote the email has been an idiot.
It is still age discrimination regardless, as someone may be early in their career regardless of their age, and anyone at any age may have training potential. Out of interest, did the job ad and person spec indicate whether they wanted a trainee or somebody more experienced?
grannyinapram · 03/02/2021 17:20

@StatisticallyChallenged

"Younger, up and coming voice which meets certain strategic goals for us"

Translation - cheaper

This made me laugh and cry
user1465423698 · 03/02/2021 17:21

@ShemShem

No.

An 80 year old can have a younger up and coming voice

Those aren't characteristics of age

You're probably just too boring for their goals

Is not has.

Is a younger voice, not has a younger voice.

LApprentiSorcier · 03/02/2021 17:23

Waiting for OP to come back and reveal she is 18.

Hollyhocksarenotmessy · 03/02/2021 17:25

Hi, this is so blatant, you should take it to an employment tribunal (which is the court that deals with employment discrimination). To do this, you first need to contact a. An employment lawyer isn't essential, but may be able to get a higher settlement, and help negotiate an appropriate out of court settlement. The company has been unbelievably stupid to write that.

Don't let it knock your confidence. It's them, not you. Make them pay for it.

ShemShem · 03/02/2021 17:31

[quote EarringsandLipstick]@ShemShem

more of a younger, up and coming voice which meets certain strategic organisational goals for us.

This is what the OP received.

They don't mean her actual voice ! 😂

They are using the word 'voice' here to mean 'input', the input of a younger person.

It's extremely clear, and it's definitely discrimination. [/quote]
Yep, I can understand basic emails.

Older people can have a young outlook. My mother works at Microsoft and has a much more youthful view on work and life than I do. She has great, 'young' ideas as she is exposed to them and expected to come up with them.

Young ideas and viewpoints doesn't have to be a young person. Don't get me wrong a young person is more likely to have a younger voice, but not all older people don't.

Sciurus83 · 03/02/2021 17:32

Kerching!! Well yes, that was bloody crap of them, but you just had a pay day! I hope you enjoy taking them to the cleaners!

DicklessWonder · 03/02/2021 17:34

@user1477249785

Doesn't it depend how old you are whether age is a protected characteristic? How old are you op? I thought it was only over 40 that it was protected but don't know why I think that.
No. Please don’t advise on things you clearly know nothing about.
LowlandLucky · 03/02/2021 17:35

user1477249785 Why would it only be for the over 40's ? I might choose not to employ someone because they are 18 and way to young .

jebthesheep · 03/02/2021 17:37

Ok, let’s try the same statement with some other protected characteristics

More Masculine up and coming voice...
Straighter up and coming voice...
Whiter up and coming voice...
More Christian up and coming voice...

Any of that sound not ok ?

iklboo · 03/02/2021 17:37

Doesn't it depend how old you are whether age is a protected characteristic? How old are you op? I thought it was only over 40 that it was protected but don't know why I think that

Where did you come up with that? I hope nobody fed you this bullshit to try to use your age against you?

ThelmaNotLouise · 03/02/2021 17:37

Blatant ageism. Go back and say you're very surprised they've admitted on record that you've been passed over for a younger candidate as to do so is discriminatory under the Equality Act and you shall therefore be seeking legal advice. Then watch them squirm.

blobblob · 03/02/2021 17:44

user was asking the question - not advising

blobblob · 03/02/2021 17:46

We do need to know how old the OP is and how old the sucessful candidate is before saying that the OP has a case.

If the OP is 40 and they hired someone who is 46 then discrimination on the grounds of age is unlikely. (Also, how old were all the other shortlisted candidates? )

malificent7 · 03/02/2021 17:49

It is agism...i have no idea where this idea comes from that older people cannot be up to date with new developments. People dont stop reading and researching as they age.

malificent7 · 03/02/2021 17:52

Agism is rife in the workplace...especially against women.

hardheadedwoman · 03/02/2021 17:53

I wouldn’t take immediate action in case they withdraw the offer to the other candidate thereby weakening your case - they could hastily find someone older than you

VinylDetective · 03/02/2021 17:55

@blobblob

We do need to know how old the OP is and how old the sucessful candidate is before saying that the OP has a case.

If the OP is 40 and they hired someone who is 46 then discrimination on the grounds of age is unlikely. (Also, how old were all the other shortlisted candidates? )

How likely is that?
LolaSmiles · 03/02/2021 18:22

It is still age discrimination regardless, as someone may be early in their career regardless of their age, and anyone at any age may have training potential. Out of interest, did the job ad and person spec indicate whether they wanted a trainee or somebody more experienced?
I agree someone could be earlier in their career at any age.

What I was trying to say, somewhat clumsily, is that it could be:
Option 1: Pure and simple age discrimination because they wanted someone young, appointed someone based on age, and then have mentioned age in the email. The decision to hire or not hire was primarily or partially driven by the age of the candidates and assumptions about what people of certain ages are like.

Or
Option 2: They appointed someone from the candidates who is earlier in their career (and therefore cheaper), someone 'up and coming' that has stood out to them as having the potential to train and shape, and they can visualise how they might nurture and promote that person over time. Being earlier in their career they might have more years at the company before moving on and so the company might decide that the successful candidate was a better long term investment.

It's entirely possible that scenario 2 could have happened, which is ok, and then some idiot has decided to use lazy cliches and make reference to a characteristic (age) that wasn't the reason because they give feedback in a hugely unprofessional way. By doing this they could have undermined a perfectly acceptable recruitment process by giving OP grounds to rightfully complain.