Is this age discrimination?

Question

I received this from a recruitment agency after I applied for a job that I appeared to be extremely well qualified for: "Unfortunately our client is really looking to recruit a recently qualified chemist with a maximum of 2 years industry experience. I will keep your CV on file for future reference."

Is this age discrimination? There doesn't appear to be any doubt that I could do the job.

Answer 1

I am presuming that you have more than two years industry experience and are more than a bit insulted that it now appears to be going against you rather than for you-and have hence reasoned that what they're really trying to say is 'young only'.

I can see where you are coming from-and you may well be partially right, but I suspect that in reality it's a financial consideration on their part-after all someone with oodles of experience in the field is going to expect a wage reflective of that experience, while a 'newly qualified' chemist (probably) won't be so financially demanding.

It could also be that you're better qualified than your potential boss is and he/she has decided that they wouldn't want to deal with that situation.

Answer 2

It is not. The employer did not specify a maximum age, they specified a maximum level of experience. They did not say, "recent college grad," they said "recently qualified." You could be a second-career recently qualified chemist at age 55, or be fresh out of school.

The employer can specify what level of experience is required for a particular position. Experience levels tie to pay levels, which in turn tie to internal equity (are all of the chemists on staff paid in the same range based on their experience levels?) If the employer hires you with, let's say, 25 years of experience, puts you into a junior-level job, and pays you based on your experience level, it will skew the whole comp structure. If they pay you at the junior level, you won't be happy and will probably find a new job somewhere else as soon as possible.

You'll find something else - best of luck to you.

Answer 3

it sounds to me like very thinly disguised age discrimination - I've certainly never heard of a company putting a maximum number of years of experience! but can you prove it?

I dont know anything about the pharmaceutical industry, but could it be that the qualifications / legislation etc have changed in the last couple of years and hence your knowledge might be out of date? Or might they want someone not set in their ways that they could train to do things their way? or could you be overqualified for the position maybe? or more importantly, could they argue that one of these is the case?

Like I said though, it sounds like discrimination, and I think this age discrimination in the workplace is ridiculous - I'd far rather someone with experience regardless of age, after all, if you train a little whippersnapper, you can guarantee they'll use all the training to look for a better job elsewhere. As for what you do about it, I dont know. Try direct.gov.uk, you might get some advice off there

Answer 4

It could go either way. I have worked in the staffing industry and know without a doubt that older individuals do get a raw deal most of the time, not necessarily because they are "old" but because a lot of business don't want to pay the salary that a person with years of experience requires.

A lot of companies are really just looking for someone without a TON of experience, this way they don't have to pay them a TON of money.

So most likely you were not considered for this job because you had too much experience, not because you are "old."

Keep looking, just because one business wants a newbie doesn't mean others won't accept and appreciate the experience you can bring to their company.

Good luck!

Answer 5

Because, in theory, it would be possible for someone of any age to be a 'recently qualified chemist', it would not be deemed to be age discriminatory. I've noticed that many graduate recruiters use this terminology - possibly as a way around the legislation?

Answer 6

The trick in law is that nothing is blatant enough to be 100% provable. This person could say they are looking for someone they can train the details too and not for someone already set in their ways or they could say that they are not wanting to pay fair market value for anyone more experienced than 2 years. It would be a hard one to prove. Try calling a local discrimination attorney and see if you can get a free consult on the letter

Answer 7

No its not. Because you could be a 50 year old who has just qualified and have maximum of 2 years industry experience.

Answer 8

Probably is a bit...but from their point of view they probably want to recruit someone who has just come out of University and has done a placement year or two,so they can train them up through the industry. They also probably get quite a few older people who are looking for a job to fill the time, as opposed to make a living and put in a lot of effort to make a start in life.

Answer 9

No sounds like you are Over Qualified. This employer would not expect you to stay for long someone with only 2 yrs will put up with less pay and you might today but can get a better job tomorrow leaving them to rehire N-E way.
www.ezfastcash.ws

Answer 10

It doesn't appear to have any reference to age. Someone 70 years old could have less than 2 years experience.