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
Can teachers personal and political views amount to misconduct?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson to advise East London Waste Authority on major waste programme
Legal Update
Government updates guidance on holiday rules: What employers need to know
Legal Update
Holiday pay: Government change clarifies treatment of term time only workers
Legal Update
Cyber-attacks in UK universities: Why failing to prepare is no longer an option
Opinion
R (Willmott) v Eastbourne Council: High Court rules council can deny social housing to disabled ex-tenant over anti-social behaviour
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Greater Manchester Combined Authority on its investment in Beryl
Opinion
School attendance matters
Opinion
Caregivers at work: Navigating new carer's leave regulations
Opinion
EHRC publishes new guidance on menopause and the workplace
Opinion
Fire and re-hire: Updated statutory code summary for employers
Legal Update
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
Legal Update
How do holiday pay reforms affect the education sector?
Legal Update
Revised Acas Code of Practice on requests for flexible working
Legal Update
Restrictive covenants – look before you leap!
Legal Update
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Legal Update
Veganism and manufacturing: Protected characteristics from discrimination in employment law
Opinion
Settlement agreements: Court of Session finds future claims may be settled
Legal Update
Holiday reforms: What employers need to know
Press Release
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors’ Duty of Care
Legal Update
Employment law in 2024: How changes impact education
Legal Update
Backpay for leavers: Employers risk unlawful deduction from wages claims
Opinion
New employment rights set to come into force
Legal Update
Minimum Service Levels introduced for ambulance, rail, and border security
Opinion
BBC personality wins appeal on IR35 status
Legal Update
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
Legal Update
The downfall of Vesttoo: Fraudulent letters of credit
Opinion
Autumn statement 2023 – key take outs for employers
Opinion
Collective bargaining rights
Opinion
Agency cover and strike action
Opinion
Updates in equality – An overview of new regulations
Opinion
Minimum Service Levels and reasonable steps – consultation response
Legal Update
Holiday entitlement and pay: Reforms ahead
Legal Update
A positive duty to prevent sexual harassment
Legal Update
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Care Fertility Group on acquisition of CRGW
Legal Update
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
Opinion
Bonus clawback provisions: Clear and reasonable
Legal Update
The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
