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.

So the title of the thread was AI. It was the suggested one by Mum’s net.
I went with that perhaps that was a mistake.
I think it was pretty clear which part of it was the email that I received

Obviously, I changed the person’s name to the initial G

And the bit that was the comment underneath from myself.
”I accidentally etc etc”

I have literally pasted their email so it’s not me that can’t write to coherently is it?

"so it’s not me that can’t write to coherently is it?" 😆

Are you okay?

@ElizabethReed I am fine I just thought it funny that you cobbled up a sentence about being able to write coherently.
You have to admit that is ironic!

It’s clearly a typo, isn’t it?
Hilarious
As opposed to her comment, which was just shitty

Nah.
Still incomprehensible

You can't sue just because you don't get a job. If the employer had simply told OP that she wasn't the best candidate, that would be the end of the matter. But sending her interview notes saying that they do not want a 15-20 year veteran is evidence of unlawful indirect age discrimination. And despite your apparent disbelief, this is the law.

You are right that, without the email, she wouldn't be on here and she wouldn't have a case as it is unlikely she would be able to prove age discrimination. But she does have that email and it is clear evidence.

You weren’t who they wanted. Best just get on with applying for other jobs.

Amazing the number of people on here who just want to wave away a fairly obvious case of indirect age discrimination.

Except the reason is because she was too old. Which isn't a lawful reason, as it's indirect age discrimination.

Good grief there are some nasty posters on this thread!

OP, ignore the grammar/sentence construction police who want to give you a kicking. I think it's hard to claim from the notes that you've been rejected on the grounds of ageism, but I would definitely reply making the point that it could be construed this way.

Dear xxx

Thank you for the email and the additional information that I assume was sent by accident. On the face of it, it looks like the company is rejecting people on the grounds of having too much experience – which could be construed as ageism. You might want to consider that going forward, seeing as age is now a protected characteristic.

Kind regards

xx

We don't OP's age though. She could have started work at 16 and got 15-20 years experience under her belt, which puts her still in her thirties. That's not old!

The term is derived from Latin veterānus, meaning "old," often highlighting a depth of experience 😐

What ?!

TheNorns
I mean, you might, if you wanted, send the email back to HR or whoever in the company that was hiring with a note saying 'This was accidentally sent to me along with the letter of rejection. As I'm sure you realise, this is deeply unprofessional.'

Include the last line and they’ll think they’ve dodged a bullet

Meh. I wouldn’t employ anyone who relies on AI to write a clearly inappropriate title for a thread on here.

What is xxxrm?

A red flag is a worrying sign that you feel you need to avoid. This is a company who don’t want to hire you so it’s not something where you have a choice anyway.

How old are you then?

What if she's a mathematician or scientist or coder who regularly uses AI for work?

And your point is?

Age is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act. Any age, not just being old. A job advert stating that candidates need 5+ years experience is likely to be indirect age discrimination as it excludes younger candidates, who have not had a chance to accumulate that much experience.

OP's age is irrelevant. All that matters is that it seems the employer is rejecting her because she has too much experience. Based on previous employment tribunal decisions, that is likely to be unlawful indirect age discrimination.

I disagree, age doesn't automatically mean experience in a field. They may have been happy to hire someone who was mature but recently qualified. Or equally put off my a 30 year old with 9 years experience. I really don't get why this thread is even an issue. OP didn't suit their requirements, that's how the employment marker works.

I still have no idea what you/they are/were on about?

Perhaps this thread is not for you then.

I don’t quite understand the first post, but if the OP has been unsuccessful she should just move on.