Job applicant receives settlement due to unlawful age discrimination at interview
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
She went on to claim for discrimination against both the specific Domino’s Pizza franchise in which she had attended the interview, and the individual that had interviewed her, claiming that she felt her age had been a key reason that she was not offered the role. She subsequently received an apology for the way in which the interview was conducted and was paid £4,250 in settlement.
Whilst Ms Walsh was based in Northern Ireland, the age discrimination provisions within England and Wales are similar. Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful to directly discriminate by treating a job applicant or employee less favourably than others because of age without objective justification. The availability of the objective justification defence is different to the other protected characteristics (sex, race, sexual orientation etc), as usually there is no such potential defence to a direct discrimination claim.
Organisations should be alive to the risks of potential discrimination claims within the recruitment process, and remember that protection extends to job applicants, not just those in employment.
Organisations should ensure all interviewers have had adequate diversity training which includes conscious and unconscious bias.
Questions at interview should focus on skills, abilities and potential. Questions that relate to protected characteristics (for example, age, questions about childcare arrangements, living arrangements, or plans to get married or to have children) should be avoided. Managers may find it helpful to have a checklist of key questions to avoid asking, with suggested alternatives. Where such information is volunteered at interview or during the recruitment process, managers should take particular care to not to allow themselves to be influenced by that information.
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Opinion
New Rights for Working Parents and Carers
Opinion
The NHS pay deal – are all Agenda for Change staff eligible?
Opinion
Further three-day junior doctors strike announced for June
Opinion
Non-compete clauses - proposed changes to employment contracts
Press Release
Browne Jacobson welcomes new Manchester employment partner Lee Ashwood
Legal Update
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Legal Update
The Retained EU Law Bill – sunsetting the sunset
Legal Update
“Smarter Regulation” – proposed employment changes ahead
Opinion
New bill reaches tipping point: bill on allocation of tips at final stages
Opinion
Pay deal reached for Agenda for Change employees
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Published Article
Third Party Harassment – haven’t we been here before?
Published Article
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Opinion
Mediation – remote or in person?
Opinion
Injunction means nurses’ strike will be cut short
Opinion
New Acas guidance on mental health reasonable adjustments
Legal Update
Industrial action update: school strikes
Opinion
Further industrial action announced as RCN reject pay deal
Opinion
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Published Article
Managing flexible working requests – how to stay on the right side of the law
Legal Update
A pandemic legacy: flexibility
Opinion
Gender pay gap reporting – what are my obligations?
Opinion
Employment claims: the new rates and limits from 6 April 2023
Opinion
Plans to amend NHS pension rules to bolster NHS workforce approved by government
Opinion
Increase to 20 hour limit on supplementary employment for Health and Care Worker visa holders
Published Article
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Article
New report highlights risk of sidelining ED&I in school trusts
Opinion
Mopping up after a leak – how businesses can take steps to protect their confidential information
Press Release
Browne Jacobson collaborates with The GLAA and University of Nottingham to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking
Legal Update
Teacher strikes – lessons learnt so far
Opinion
Can toilet facilities amount to sex discrimination?
Opinion
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has approval to take over from the Solicitors Indemnity Fund
Legal Update
Embargoed Judgments: A Professional Word of Caution
Opinion
Consultation launched on minimum ambulance service levels during strike action
Opinion - Maternity services
Changes to redundancy protections for employees post-maternity leave
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Opinion
BMA issues medical locum rate card for junior doctors
Legal Update
Employee who refused to wear a face mask fairly dismissed
