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

Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Discrimination against car-free people

3 replies

madamez · 09/01/2008 14:17

I notice that quite a lot of job adverts seem to require people to own cars when it doesn't appear to be directly relevant to the job on offer. I'm looking for work at the moment and find this a slight source of concern (obviously I'm not applying to be a minicab driver). If it's clear that a job can be done perfectly well without car ownership, and yet I get refused the job because I am car free, would that count as discrimination?

OP posts:
RibenaBerry · 09/01/2008 14:20

No. Discrimination is only prohibited on grounds of sex, race, religion, age, sexual orientation and disability. Unless your reason for not owning a car comes under that (e.g. you are blind and there are other ways to deal with the job's travel requirements) it is not discrimination as such. It might be sex discrimination if you could show that women were less likely to have full use of a family car, but it's pushing it...

Sorry. You could apply and not say anything about the car on your form and then challenge their perceptions at interview though.

madamez · 09/01/2008 14:33

RB, yeah, that's what I will do. It came up a couple of years ago at my celebrant interview, and I patiently explained that weddings are generally held in places accessible via public transport (or at least a minicab from the station) but should I ever have to do one in somewhere that was really hard to get to without a private car I would get a friend to drive me for the day, and they were happy to accept that.
ANother ob I vaguely enquired about said that one needed a car for 'safety reasons' which is bollocks IMO, being in a car is no safer than being on public transport.

OP posts:
flowerybeanbag · 09/01/2008 15:00

I would always advise employers to advertise for someone with the 'ability to travel' or similar rather than 'car owner' for the reasons Ribena mentions.

Non-ownership of a car as a selection criteria isn't discrimination in itself but advertising for that unnecessarily (as you are finding) is leaving the employer very vulnerable to discrimination claims from disabled candidates, so it's a bit daft of them really.

I agree, apply anyway then challenge at interview.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page