AIBU to see this accidental rejection email as a red flag?

[ElizabethReed]

What they do not want
Too senior
This is a major red flag.
They do not want:

• 15–20 year veteran
• people who have “done everything already”
• people who feel too established / too corporate
• someone who may be less hungry for a builder seat

G specifically said profiles like “I built xxx rm” are probably not the right fit.

I accidentally received this email along with my rejection today. The notes from the hiring manager.

Your post doesn’t make much sense. Red flag for what though? They didn’t offer you the job anyway

It's unfortunate you were sent the information about why you were rejected, but I don't see it as a red flag. Afterall, you won't be working there anyway. Perhaps you did come across as too corporate as though you thought you knew a lot. The rejection notes just gives some advice to the hirer/screener I think.

If it's about you then it's pretty useful. If you apply and interview for a job but get rejected it is almost impossible to obtain truthful and pertinent feedback on why you didn't get the post, which is what this is.
But it might not even be about you. It's clearly a basic admin error, who's to say that the content doesn't relate to someone else.
In no way is it a good idea to get back to them about it. If you are genuinely looking for work you need to take rejections with a good grave and accept them as a learning experience.
You getting back to them about a stupid email is the way to be remembered for the wrong reasons, and yes, it IS sometimes useful to be remembered as the candidate who wasn't selected because you never know who talks to who.
There's nothing in that email to say "not a great person".

Also, whoever suggested age discrimination... 🙄

This. They want a discount person who is using it as their first step into the higher job category and so will be able to pay them less due to lack of exp.

And that is the epitome of age discrimination.

It really is. So yes age discrimination.

Is that a bad attempt at some ChatGPT or something as I can barely understand a word of it 😕

No, it's not. People can change careers at any age. You saying they can't IS age discrimination. The epitome of it, even.

This, I don’t understand the red flag comment? You’ve not been offered the job, so it’s not like you think, I was going to take it and I won’t now they’ve made this error, it’s a red flag.

Sorry but if you think the email is evidence of age discrimination then you come across as somebody unable to read actual words.

The point which you are spectacularly missing is this affects older people more than younger and is therefore the very definition of indirect discrimination.

I don’t think so necessarily. My employer hires on a graduate scheme, and also on a retraining scheme. Both require you to have no experience in our industry, but have attracted candidates who are in their 30/40/50s because they’ve retrained and done a degree later in life, or have worked in [retail/public sector/other irrelevant field] and want to retrain into our profession.

The experience is not an age barrier, it truly is an experience barrier. We have other roles that may or may not be open at any given time for people who have relevant experience.

I'm old, and working full time in a senior role. If I were the interviewee, I wouldn't go back to the company with any feedback on this, I'd just take it on board. OP, you'll just stand out as difficult and a bullet dodged if you go back to them accusing them of unprofessionalism and age discrimination. While it might make you feel better, it won't change their beliefs or behaviour (even if they are wrong/ unpalatable). I'd take the rejection as a 'phew' moment, I wouldn't want to work for them based on this.

Ack I wouldn’t have bothered, but to each, their own

And any job that requires 5 years + experience rules out 18-23 year olds as a minimum, and probably a lot of other younger people. Is that also indirect discrimination?

Not sure why people are struggling to understand the OP - it's pretty clear. Maybe if that company hired people who were more 'corporate' and 'experienced', they wouldn't be in the position of having sent out unprofessional and age discriminatory emails.

Yes, that's right. There's lots of case law about both. Have a look. I suggest you do some basic reading around this.

They probably just want someone hungry enough for promotion to work over above their pay grade) and overtime for free. Maleable.

Saying they don't want a 15-20 year veteran is likely to be indirect age discrimination, notwithstanding the fact that some older candidates may have less experience than this.

Yes. It is well established in law that requiring 5+ years experience or similar is indirect age discrimination.

Since it didn't contain people's names etc it's not really a data breach. Just a silly error where their notes got sent to you. Move on.

I think there was a red flag in this recruitment process ... for them

They’ve said they want someone newer to the industry, not necessarily someone younger. It could be someone changing careers?

This was my thinking....
glad I am not the only one who thinks so.

The courts have been clear that this kind of requirement is indirect age discrimination. The fact the requirement could be fulfilled by someone changing careers is irrelevant.