I applied for and was interviewed for an in-house job, which I did not get. When I asked why I was told: "The roles that you have taken on appear to have been at a more senior level than the role we have. Should I identify a role that is more senior and therefore more suited to your capabilities, I would, of course, be in contact."
I am in my mid-forties and 20 years' qualified but out of a job and in need of work. Does their response constitute age discrimination and, if so, how should I tackle this issue with the prospective employer?
Click 'Comment on this article' to post your advice in confidence - or click here to share your wisdom on the Legal Week Wiki, where no topic is off limits. Rate or slate your firm and its rivals with our ground-breaking insider's guide to City law.
And remember, Career Clinic is only as good as the questions we receive, so email your career conundrums to community@legalweek.com.
No I don't believe so. They are basing the decision on your experience rather than your age. You could be a 40 year old solicitor with only 2 years PQE and therefore be rejected for the job because you are too inexperienced - this would not constitute age discrimination just as rejecting someone because they are overqualified does not constitute age discrimination. However, if you feel that the real reason you were not offered the job was because of your age and you feel they are using the reason that you are too senior to hide the age discrimination then obviously seek advice.
I agree with Anonymous. An employer may be thinking that, if and when the market for more senior positions picks up, you will move and will in the meantime be treating this more junior position as a stop-gap. They may be wanting someone who's prepared to hang around and for whom this would be an aspirational position. Similarly, it may skew their department profile and make it harder for others in the team currently - consider the impact on a team of a 20 year PQE joiner: someone hoping for the next promotion may automatically assume it would go to you. I don't think this is about age discrimination. Even if it was, I don't see how you would prove it given the PQE issue.
From your clear lack of understanding of law, its not surprising why they refused you the job. Its not discriminatory, they just don't want 20 year PQE lawyers who don't even know the basics...
That last poster is rude and rather blithe about your case. It's also nonsense to pretend that lawyers in general have wide knowledge of others areas of law. Most commerical lawyers these days know their own little specialism and very little else.
Depending on the details of your case and the fact that you are out of work it sounds like they are pushing the envelope of the law, at least in terms of their procedures. That said, it sounds more like a marginal case rather than a slam dunk claim. But it's worth running it past an employment lawyer to get a properly infomred view.
I think we should stick to the details provided. The original poster has said that he has 20 years experience and was rejected on the basis that he has most recently been working at a more senior level. If we assume that despite his seniority he is still capable of doing the job then on what basis have they rejected him? All answers given are ways of hiding age discrimation. I have had clients say to me that they don't want someone senior because it will upset the team dynamics. Why, because a team of 20-30 somethings will not have anything in commone with someone in their 40s? Rubbish! Or is it that the more senior person may be preferred when opportunities for advancement come up? Tough, even if that were to be the case, surely it should be promotion based on merit and ability rather than time served within a team. Unless they can show that he lacks the skills to do the job then he has every right to be treated pari passu with any other applicants and if the employer wants to avoid hot water they better come up with a better formula of words than "a better candidate presented on the day..." because the above comment sounds like a bog-standard HR brush-off. They could have got away with it a couple of years ago but they need to have more specific criteria now.
Apologies - tripping over my words in the last few lines above. I meant to say that it is safer to say "someone better presented on the day". Although bland and not giving any specifics, it is much safer than saying "You are too senior..." far too loaded with ageist sentiment.
Has the poster considered growing a beard? A wonderful age concealer I find. And as other people have observed, a provider of instant gravitas if grown well.
I agree with the other headhunter. The Age Discrimination laws have tried to do away with the notion of being "over" qualified for a job and view such reasons for not appointing as a form of age prejudice. Having said that I would love to see this point tested by the Courts: recruiters are now (for the same reasons) unable to advertise roles as x-y pqe, we have to say "from x pqe" with no upper limit, and it causes no end of confusion.
Presumably the objective justification defence to any indirect age disc claim would be that the company would rather not risk hiring someone too senior in case they can't work with their line managers because their line managers are in fact less qualified than they are etc etc. Seems to me that they could make a good business case. Wouldn't fancy your chances with this one.
Jason is missing the point a little. If you take on someone with 20 years PQE at the same level as three other people with 3 years PQE, those people may very well think "I'm not going to even be considered for the next promotion because it'll automatically go to the more experienced person". That may be neither here nor there but it may very well be something you want to avoid. Not so much a question of the senior person not being treated at the same level - more the potential perception on the part of other team members that it's not worth their sticking around. BTW, in my experience it doesn't make any difference if the people on 3 years PQE are 25 or 45.
I agree with Simon's scenario but it still doesn't change the fact that he is being discrimated against because of his seniority. In the ten or more years I have been in recruitment I have heard this line almost every time a more senior candidate was submitted. It's like a little HR Mantra and it sickens me that they try to use recruiters to effect this less than subtle discrimination. Even if Simon's scenario is played out and a less experienced member of the team ...left because they felt they were passed over, this happens. In an ideal world people think they are going to join a company and will be there for good. The reality is that for a number of reasons, most people move every couple of years.
Surely this debate just proves that the legislation is flawed: one employee is protected at the expense of another.
I'm not sure that you could successfully argue age discrimination - although you could certainly have a go.
This person is in their 40s. But the same scenario could happen with someone in their 20s. Imagine someone who goes straight through uni and LPC and qualifies at the age of 24. 4 years later they are 28, 4 years PQE and they see a job advertised which says 1 year PQE. They don't get it because the employer wants someone more junior (probabably to pay a lower salary). Can you really argue age discrimination between a 25 year old and a 28 year old? I don't think so and I don't think the principle is any different because someone is in their 40s. It's very. very annoying but I don't think you could bring a successful claim. Go to an employment lawyer and seek advice - but I don't hold out much hope.
The point about "seniority" and pqe is that it is potentially indirectly discriminatory to refuse to employ someone because of the length of their pqe because that is more likely to have a detrimental effect on older people than on younger ones - because a person with more pqe is likely to be older than a person with less pqe. It does not matter that there are 40 year old nqs if in fact most nqs are in their 20s.
Here the issue seems not to be about pqe but about the level of seniority of roles previously undertaken - if you have been used to running a team and the job involves no management responsibility it would be a legitimate concern for the potential employer that you are not suited to that role and could not perform it properly.
In reality it probably does not matter whether you are the victim of age discrimination or not - what you need is a job so rather than bring a speculative action against this potential employer, why not go to see a recruitment consultant and get some interview tips and practice and come up with a strategy to deal with the "over-qualified" point in your next interview?
Reality check people - if the poster is in his 40s and really wants another job in the legal field then the last thing he should be doing is looking to take legal action against a prospective employer on a really wobbly age discrimination claim.
Exactly, the responses here just prove how naive lawyers are. They think people want to sit about discussing technical points all day long, when really anyone who has experience in business will know this happens all the time, and there is a practical reason for it: they worry about your motivation for a lower skilled job and see little value in putting you in it. Your interest in such a position also shows a desperation that must be hard to overlook. That's why you aren't getting, not because of your age...and you don't need a silly employment lawyer to tell you that!
Just because it happens all the time doesn't make it right. And why do you have to have a job commensurate with your skills? What about those who would prefer to have a less responsible job, earn less money and go home on time? Just because you have 20 years' PQE doesn't mean you want a job requiring 20 years' PQE. You might be happy with a reasonably junior role if it gives you an income and an interesting job. It used to "happen all the time" that posters were placed in shops saying that jobs were available and "No Irish". Do some of you think that age discrimination is ok because it always happens? Nobody would dare come on here and say it was ok to discriminate against an ethnic minority because it always happens (it undoubtedly happens sometimes). Unfair discrimination is always wrong - whether for gender, age, race, disability or otherwise. I agree that rocking the boat isn't necessarily the way to get a job - and I don't agree that age discrimination has happened in this case. However, I do think age discrimination is wrong, I think employers should accept that people don't always want the most senior job they are capable of (after all, employers can't give everyone a senior role - they need some plodders) and if people do suffer discrimination they are entitled to do something about it if they feel it's the right course of action for them.
I never had a problem finding a job until I put on 15 pounds and 10 years. Age is always an issue no matter how qualified you are or how well you present. Face it, they want to hire young people that they hope will make a career of it, they can mould in their own image and are good to look at. If you don't know that now, you will in 10 more years. Just the facts!
Latest Jobs
