Is this discrimination under the Equality Act?

[rockybalboa]

I went for a job interview yesterday, sort of informal but we had a chat about the role, the extent to which I suited it and the fact that I am looking for part-time hours to fit around my childcare (interviewer knew this beforehand). So he said that I met all the relevant criteria for the role but if he interviewed someone who also met the criteria but was available to work f/t hours then that would tip the balance in favour of that candidate. The more I think about this, the more this irks me and the more I think that he is discriminating against me because of my gender because as a woman I am more likely to be the one bearing the burden of the child care responsibility and therefore working p/t. I've had equality training from my current employer and I'm fairly sure that's what it said although I'm happy to be told that I'm barking up the wrong tree

I'm not even sure that I want the job were it to be offered to me anyway but I fel the need for an opinion from the MN collective about the rights and wrongs of it!

Have they advertised it as a f/t role?

"the more I think that he is discriminating against me because of my gender because as a woman I am more likely to be the one bearing the burden of the child care responsibility and therefore working p/t."

That may well be a choice more women than men make, but it is a choice. You could just as easily choose for your DH/DP to work around childcare. It isn't an inherent characteristic.

An employer is allowed to decide how many hours it needs a new role to be for and recruit on that basis.

After 26 weeks continuous employment, employees can request flexible working, including going part time, and any blanket "we don't do part time here" rules are likely to be indirectly discriminatory for the reasons you describe.

But that doesn't mean employers are required to change full time roles to part time, job share or whatever at the recruitment stage.

If they have it in mind to have this post FT, and you can only offer PT, it's not discrimination. They've just chosen the best candidate for the job which, in this case, means they can work more hours.

Did you offer to do it as a FT post, job shared with someone else, or just "I want to do x part time hours"?

It's a new role which is being created and hasn't yet been advertised as such (I was head hunted). I am sure that the training I had to do at work said something about not discriminating against women because they are more likely to ask to work p/t but I agree that Motherhood isn't a protected characteristic!

Sorry, x post with PeterParker. Basically I got headhunted, told the recruiter I currently work p/t and am not looking to change that so the interviewer knew I work p/t before he saw me. It's not a job share type role as it is a fairly senior position. I can understand why he would prefer someone f/t given what is involved but he knew from the off that I'm not. Maybe he thought he could 'turn' me!

Oh and by p/t I mean 4 days a week.

Did the interviewer definitely know that you only work/wanted to work p/t before you met him? As you were headhunted by a recruiter, is it at all possible that they have not been completely upfront with the interviewer? Or given the impression that you were amenable to fulltime? It wouldn't be the first time it has happened!

I think it might only start looking like discrim if they then hired someone who did part time hours for a different reason. At the moment you only have evidence (verbal) that it is the hours that is a difficult not your child care responsibilities and even if it was the child care I don't know how strong your case would be...

I suspect headhunter is flinging people at roles without making the hours clear to either party.

Don't employer always take on people who are willing to work more hours?

I knew that when I was job hunting that I was less appealing because I had restricted hours. I never felt discriminated against.

no you are choosing to work part time.

you don't choose to be black, disabled, gay or (in the majority of circumstances but not all) a woman.

The aim of the equality act is to stop people being unfairly discriminated against because of something out of their control.

You are being discriminated against because of your own choices. If you changed your choices you would have the same opportunity as anyone else.

not all 'discrimination' is necessarily 'unfair'. or 'unlawful'

According to European law it is unlawful discrimination to discriminate against pt employees over ft.

There was a case specific to this decided in the ecj.

It is classed as unlawful because women are more likely to work pt than men, and women are a protected category.

However this applies to things like access to training/pay/leave etc.

I don't think you'd be apply to apply the principle in the scenario you describe. The employer can say that the role requires a 5 day week.