Turned down for a job - possible discrimination

[Andrew_P]

I applied for a sales advisor position with a furniture company who are opening a new store locally.
I'm more than qualified for the job, have a proven track record in customer services and turned up looking presentable and was articulate throughout the interview.
I never heard a word.
I've just emailed the recruiter pressing for feedback and had an immediate response - like wihtin minutes!! - with the standard response of "stronger candidates on the day, nothing I did wrong "
Now the reason I'm pressing the matter is that during the interview they asked me a lot about how my family would affect me doing the job.
Seriously the first question was whether I was married and had children. They also pushed the matter in terms of going away for training and working weekends etc.
So, question is, how do I word it so I can say "I think you're discriminating against me" without just saying it. Or do I just say it?!
I was looking to go with
"Thanks for the prompt response. The reason I'm requesting specific feedback is that I felt the line of questioning revolved around my family committments and not my ability to do the job. "
Thoughts?

My wife popped in to the local bakery to ask if they had any jobs, they have quite a few stores and I was amazed at the application form. Seemed more like a dating site one, might have even asked to attach a photo, it revolved around kids and home commitments. I thought it was very sexist and I assumed anyone with kids under 15/16 was going to get knocked back.

 

[jefmcg]

Seems pretty plain that it is not allowed:

I just said that

Interviewer - Are you married? have 12 kids?

Totally illegal.

 

[marinyork]

I once again urge you to read the Employment Statutory Code of Practice. Here's some highlights though:-

What the Act says 2.31

A person who is married or in a civil partnership has the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership.

16.62

It is particularly important to avoid irrelevant interview questions that relate to protected characteristics, as this could lead to discrimination under the Act. These could include, for example, questions about childcare arrangements, living arrangements or plans to get married or to have children. Where such information is volunteered, selectors should take particular care not to allow themselves to be influenced by that information. A woman is under no obligation to declare her pregnancy in a recruitment process. If she volunteers that information, it should not be taken into account in deciding her suitability for the job.

I'd also do what regulator said and go national. The national person is not going to be amused in the least. The local person may well be in on the act.

 

[Sandra6]

Unfortunately I don't have the time to answer this properly.

I would heavily recommend having a read through this before sending off an e-mail.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/employercode.pdf

Chapter 16. Also other bits in there around page 36 and page 55.

That's really long! I think what I take from it is that I would have to prove they took on non-married childless people who are otherwise equally qualified as me, which I won't know until the store opens and I go along for a nosey!

 

[Milzy]

I threw my tea cup and saucer on the floor when I read this. 100% discrimination. I didn't know this still went on in this day and age.

 

[Sandra6]

I once again urge you to read the Employment Statutory Code of Practice. Here's some highlights though:-

What the Act says 2.31

A person who is married or in a civil partnership has the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership.

16.62

It is particularly important to avoid irrelevant interview questions that relate to protected characteristics, as this could lead to discrimination under the Act. These could include, for example, questions about childcare arrangements, living arrangements or plans to get married or to have children. Where such information is volunteered, selectors should take particular care not to allow themselves to be influenced by that information. A woman is under no obligation to declare her pregnancy in a recruitment process. If she volunteers that information, it should not be taken into account in deciding her suitability for the job.

I'd also do what regulator said and go national. The national person is not going to be amused in the least. The local person may well be in on the act.

But how do I word it for maximum effect? I don't want to just come across as disgruntled -which I am, it was bloody good pay!!

 

[jefmcg]

"I am disturbed to discover that some of the questions I was asked during the interview are actually illegal under the [..] and am concerned that have been discriminated against. Please let me know what actions you plan to take to discover if your interviewer was acting outside the law, and when I can expect to know the results of that investigation"

 

[Sandra6]

@jefmcg You clever clever chap

 

[marinyork]

But how do I word it for maximum effect? I don't want to just come across as disgruntled -which I am, it was bloody good pay!!

I don't know about specific wording. I'm just giving you material.

I would do what regulator says and go national. Just pretty much copy and paste what you said here and about what happened in the conversation.

Say that you are concerned as the Equality Act 2010 has marriage as a protected characteristic. Maybe quote 16.62 or whatever else sounds good. Say that in light of that you are concerned that it hasn't been a fair process and to you a discriminatory one.

When I've had to deal with processes that involved discrimination or unfairness and it has been complained to senior people it's involved the decision being reviewed or a countback process or even a total re-run.

I would have thought national person you're more likely to get the feedback you want even if they look at it and say well i can see why you'd think they were complete and utter tossers, they didn't do it properly, here is more detailed feedback that you asked even though we can't offer you more.

 

[jefmcg]

chap

chappess

 

[Sandra6]

Email sent with the threat of taking matters further.

 

[Sandra6]

chappess

Oh gosh, didn't mean to discriminate!! I'll kiss anyone.

 

[Bimble]

It's that jef thing again ...

 

[Bimble]

Email sent with the threat of taking matters further.

Good luck.

 

[Sandra6]

Not so speedy on his response this time!