Turned down for a job - possible discrimination

[jefmcg]

The law in Australia is used to be that women could not be asked to lift more than 20kg. It was astounding how many junior management positions involved lifting more than 20kg. It was the only legal way to say "men only" in a want ad.

 

[User482]

So, Josh, resourcing officer, has just rung to ask for full details of what happened. And I told him. his response "uh, oh, uh, yes, well, they shouldn't have asked that"
He is going to look at the interview notes and then somebody from HR will follow it up.
IF they haven't already, they better get on the phone to a woman and offer her the job!

Good for you. I don't suppose they'll change their minds, but you can bet the interviewer is getting a dressing down from the HR manager, and won't be doing it again.

 

[Bimble]

Whilst there is currently no proof of discrimination, it seems clear from Sandra6's account that the interview covered protected characteristics that is shouldn't have and she is free to pursue it further with the company if she feels this may have influenced the decision not to employ her.

I doubt she intends to badger the company into employing her, just give her reasonable explanation why she was not a suitable candidate, and hopefully Josh can help provide this information.

I've removed some of the latter posts. Please keep it civil or the thread will be locked and Sandra6 can update us once the matter is resolved.

 

[oldfatfool]

Sorry my attitude is if they don't want to employ me then whats the difference the reason/ excuse they use, at the end of the day it is their loss, and if they had no excuse and were forced to hire = unpleasant enviroment

 

[glasgowcyclist]

You'd also hope a half competent lawyer would be able to spot a fairly blatant breach of the law

A half-competent one probably would.

 

[r04DiE]

I just said that

Sorry, I was backing you up but I hadn't realised that you'd already done that.

 

[steveindenmark]

I agree that the questions regarding marriage or children should not have been asked.

But I would hold back with the discrimination unless you can prove that the successful applicant does not have a wife and children.

 

[Spinney]

I agree that the questions regarding marriage or children should not have been asked.

But I would hold back with the discrimination unless you can prove that the successful applicant does not have a wife and children.

As far as the successful male applicant (assuming they have employed a male) being married goes, I think many people would assume that the female part of a partnership with kids will do most of the childcare duties, and are unlikely to be as biased against a man with children than against a woman with children. (Assuming they were biased at all).

 

[steveindenmark]

As far as the successful male applicant (assuming they have employed a male) being married goes, I think many people would assume that the female part of a partnership with kids will do most of the childcare duties, and are unlikely to be as biased against a man with children than against a woman with children. (Assuming they were biased at all).

I'm just too tired to work all that out

 

[jefmcg]

But I would hold back with the discrimination unless you can prove that the successful applicant does not have a wife and children.

There is no matching assumption that father's are unreliable workers because of child care responsibilities. If anything, it would be the opposite: a man who is settled and has dependents would be more reliable than a single man.

If the new employee is a single dad with custody of six, and that came up in the interview then we could definitely say there was no sexism involved.

(and it's not definitely sexism. The interviewer might just be ignorant of the law, and the marriage questions were genuine icebreakers. And with a role like retail, there is not absolutely and inarguable best candidate, so even someone very good can miss out.)

 

[jefmcg]

Point.
Even if I did batter them into giving me a job, I wouldn't want to work with them, and if I did they'd find a more legitimate way of getting rid of me pretty quickly.

Hypothetically, imagine Josh and his team investigate, find that the recruiting process was very wrong - excluding women and muslims from consideration for example. They dismiss/retrain/demote/relocate the people responsible. Then they reinterview you and all the other women (and muslims), realise your outstanding skills and admire your proactive response to the obstacles that they had placed in your way. Would you not take the job then, if they offered it to you?

 

[MarquisMatsugae]

What if they just denied asking you if you were married and had 12 kids ?

 

[MarquisMatsugae]

Nothing will happen unfortunately. Unless you can prove those questions were asked (which, unless the interview was recorded, I doubt) it will be a case of your word against the interview panel All the interviewers have to do is deny they asked you those questions and we have an instant stalemate.

Ah
Already asked.

 

[Sandra6]

Hypothetically, imagine Josh and his team investigate, find that the recruiting process was very wrong - excluding women and muslims from consideration for example. They dismiss/retrain/demote/relocate the people responsible. Then they reinterview you and all the other women (and muslims), realise your outstanding skills and admire your proactive response to the obstacles that they had placed in your way. Would you not take the job then, if they offered it to you?

Given the £18000 basic pay would come in very handy right now, I might just!

What if they just denied asking you if you were married and had 12 kids ?

This is what I expect to happen tbh. The bloke is hardly going to admit to being a muppet. At best I'll get an apology and they'll rethink their interview questions.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

I can't see that any real good can come from a challenge.

I went for a job some months back, quite a niche role that few are qualified for. It was an assessment day and all 6 candidates spent the day together. I was the only candidate with the experience and qualification to do the job, I had all the right industry contacts and knowledge, and as far as I could see, no-one else came close. It all went extremely well and I expected to land the job.
What I didn't know at the time (I found out afterwards from the retiring post holder) was that the successful candidate was a good social mate of the hiring manager and also his wife worked for the company. He had no industry experience or knowledge, something he was open about on the day, so it looks to be a case of pure nepotism. I had to press for feedback, when it came it simply said that another candidate was stronger. He wasn't even suited for the role at the basics level, let alone "stronger".

I was angry about that if I'm honest and I thought about challenging, but it's not like it would have (a) got me the job, (b) materially changed how that company recruits, and above all (c) done my reputation any good whatsoever. I got over it eventually and I feel I've come out of it with the greater dignity.

I've just accepted a far better post with a much larger company, with a 75% salary increase, so sometimes things happen for a reason. This job could well have tied you up for that next big thing... don't let it eat you up, be positive, and move on.