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.
Contact
Mark Hickson
Head of Business Development
onlineteaminbox@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)370 270 6000
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
DEI in school governance: Key themes and insights
Article
Using AI for recruitment: The data issues
On-Demand
Nuclear PSG webinar: Conflict avoidance on major projects
Article
The socio-economic duty: Shifting mindsets for true social mobility
Legal Update
Trans matters in health for trusts and acute settings: The decision in For Women Scotland
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s School Leaders Survey illustrates concerns over financial resilience ahead of spending review
Press Release
Majority of UK organisations remain committed to sustainability and ESG, says new research
Legal Update
Ireland’s first Consumer Representative Action issued in the High Court
Legal Update
Navigating the streets: The legal landscape of low traffic neighbourhoods
Opinion
Disciplinary procedures and mental health: Employer considerations
Opinion
Supreme Court gender ruling: Ensuring inclusion in the workplace
Legal Update
Celebrating diversity and inclusion in the NHS: Equality, Diversity, and Human Rights Week 2025
Legal Update
Supporting mental wellbeing in the workplace: Practical steps for businesses
Legal Update - Maternity services
A New chapter for families: Reflecting on the first month of the introduction of neonatal care leave
Legal Update
Trans matters in care: The decision in For Women Scotland
Legal Update
Trans matters in sport: The decision in For Women Scotland
Opinion
EHRC releases guidance for employers after Supreme Court ruling on definition of woman
Legal Update
2025/26 employment rates and limits: Are costs increases having a negative impact on the job market?
Press Release - Firm news
Browne Jacobson appoints Bernhard Maier as Head of Arbitration
Legal Update
Case analysis: Enforceability of MOUs in commercial transactions
Legal Update
Sweetened dispute: The VAT battle over Mega Marshmallows
Press Release - Firm news
Browne Jacobson expands international disputes offering with new Head of Commercial Dispute Resolution in London
Legal Update
The concept of sex is binary: For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers Supreme Court case explained
Legal Update
Updated Modern Slavery Act Transparency Guidance: Key obligations and steps for businesses
Legal Update
Do whistleblowing protections extend to external job applicants?
Article - Employment Rights Bill
The Employment Rights Bill: What the new amendments mean for employers
On-Demand - Care Focus webinar series
Care Focus: Regulatory and employment
Legal Update
Rukhadze and others v Recovery Partners GP Ltd: Fiduciary duties and the duty to account for profits
Legal Update
Fair conduct dismissal: Guidance from the Court of Appeal
Legal Update
Employment healthcare briefing: March 2025
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Obsequio Group on strategic expansion
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Mercia Ventures on £3.9m investment in highways drainage specialist Crown Plus
Legal Update
The ripple effect: How US DEI shifts are impacting UK and Ireland businesses
On-Demand
EdCon 2025: Top five takeaways
Opinion
That’s Asda price: Tribunal considers that retail roles are of equal value to distribution centre jobs
Legal Update
Recent developments: Awards of non-material damages under the GDPR
Legal Update
Transformative leadership: In conversation with Lauren Thorpe
Legal Update
Reflecting our communities: The push for diversity in school governance
Legal Update
Legal challenges in workplace inclusion: A Scottish tribunal's examination of transgender rights
