Unfair Interview?

marybelle01

waltolla wrote: »

Hi westondave. Thanks your your answer. The job I was being interviewed for is known for trying to recruit anyone that is NOT a white male (of which I am). Do you think I could find out using the data protection act how many interviewers were present in the other candidates interviews broken down into sex, race etc?

No I don't - the DPA doesn't allow you to access data about other people!

And I'm, with Firefox - what the hell kind of job was it? "Known" isn't evidence of discrimination - you'll need to do better than that, and if you want people to help you then you are going to have to give more details.

waltolla

"We promote positive action, providing assistance in order to remove real or perceived barriers to under represented groups in the workplace. Positive action will be used to encourage under-represented groups to join the organization." - taken from their employment statement. Apologies I can't give any more details of the organization as I feel this would be held against me at a future intake. And I understand "known" isn't evidence of discrimination. I was hoping someone could suggest a way I could prove it.

KiKi

Unless you have actual, real, tangible, provable evidence that you were discriminated against, then there is nothing unlawful happening.

There may be good reasons for having more people in the room for the other interview - but even if there weren't, it's not unfair in law.

Maybe - just maybe - you weren't the best candidate for the role?

KiKi

Evilm

No. Stop trying to find reasons that its unfair and accept it: You didn't get the job.

Even a "positive action" statement doesn't conclusively prove they were chosen over you because of their status in a under-represented group. Unless you literally have a note or overhead them saying "We took X over OP because X is {race/other characteristic}" you have no case. They can easily say "X fitted our needs better" or "X had more experience in {subject A}".

And if it is a current employer you are discussing and this was an internal job seeking to pursue this is likely to undermine your current position with them for the future. It shouldn't do but its hard to forget that someone raised this kind of claim in the past even if the employer is trying to be scrupulously fair and follow all legal procedures.

PS - one Google search and I suspect who you most likely are talking about. I don't personally read their statement as "we will employ {race/characteristic} over a white male.

MT90

You won't be able to prove anything against them because they don't appear to have done anything wrong.

If you were trying to be secretive, you weren't very good.

ILW

It's the Old Bill.

dktreesea

If two candidates apply who are equally qualified for a promotion, the employer can't discriminate on the basis or race, but can follow positive action guidelines:

"The new positive action provisions mean that it
is not unlawful to recruit or promote a candidate
who is of equal merit to another candidate, if the
employer reasonably thinks the candidate:
• has a protected characteristic that is underrepresented
in the workforce; or
• that people with that characteristic suffer a
disadvantage connected to that characteristic."

So say the issue is race. Race is a protected characteristic. If the employer thinks the person is of a race which is under-represented in the organisation as a whole, they can prefer that candidate over another equally qualified candidate.

If you wanted to appeal against the decision, you would have to show that you are a better qualified person for the promotion than the other candidate.

If it's the public sector you work for, then this kind of positive action in favour of non white candidates for promotion could be because of targets set by the government. I saw something in the news a year or two ago about how the Met, for example, intended to "parachute in" - the exact phrase - people from ethnic backgrounds to senior positions in the police because they didn't have enough suitable candidates applying internally to meet government quotas. Never mind that they had no policing experience!

Yorkie1

See the definition of positive action:

http://www.equality-online.org.uk/equality_advice/positive_action.html

It is perfectly legal.

You are confusing it with positive discrimination, which is what you allege, which is unlawful.

I think you're on a hiding to nothing, frankly.

waltolla

Thank you dktreesea I appreciate your post.

KiKi

dktreesea wrote: »

If two candidates apply who are equally qualified for a promotion, the employer can't discriminate on the basis or race, but can follow positive action guidelines:

"The new positive action provisions mean that it
is not unlawful to recruit or promote a candidate
who is of equal merit to another candidate, if the
employer reasonably thinks the candidate:
• has a protected characteristic that is underrepresented
in the workforce; or
• that people with that characteristic suffer a
disadvantage connected to that characteristic."

So say the issue is race. Race is a protected characteristic. If the employer thinks the person is of a race which is under-represented in the organisation as a whole, they can prefer that candidate over another equally qualified candidate.

If you wanted to appeal against the decision, you would have to show that you are a better qualified person for the promotion than the other candidate.

If it's the public sector you work for, then this kind of positive action in favour of non white candidates for promotion could be because of targets set by the government. I saw something in the news a year or two ago about how the Met, for example, intended to "parachute in" - the exact phrase - people from ethnic backgrounds to senior positions in the police because they didn't have enough suitable candidates applying internally to meet government quotas. Never mind that they had no policing experience!

So IF this was the case, then the other candidate was of equal merit to the OP anyway.

Regardless, there is absolutely no way we can assume that's what's happened. Almost everyone thinks they're the best person for the job, and will be upset / annoyed when they don't get the job they want.

It doesn't mean that it was positive action. And if it was, then the candidates were equal.

And if it was positive discrimination - well, good luck proving it.

KiKi