Discrimination at Interview - what to do?

ianian99

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

And what does it matter whether the OP is black or not? You can't just make racist comments in the workplace. The OP may have been ideal in all other ways, but if they have a black partner / child / granny you've lost them by your remarks before you start!

it matters because they are saying they were discriminated against and mentioned that the interviewer said that so if the y were black thenh it would make a difference.; Plus what was the comment and was it racist?

Spendless

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

It would be interesting for the OP and Spendless to compare notes and see if it's the same charity. I was appalled then, and I'm appalled now! Charities are NOT above the law!

And I agree that you probably don't want to pursue this any further than a letter of complaint to head office, because honestly who WOULD want to work in such a benighted place, although cc to the Charity Commission wouldn't go amiss, and the Racial Equality Commission too.

acemoola I am going to PM you to tell you the name of the charity because if it IS the same charity then they have had at least 1 complaint (from me!) about this in the last 12 months.

ohreally

Spendless wrote: »

acemoola I am going to PM you to tell you the name of the charity because if it IS the same charity then they have had at least 1 complaint (from me!) about this in the last 12 months.

Was your complaint made to the charity or a relevant enforcement agency?

Savvy_Sue

ianian99 wrote: »

i never said it was fine i just said thats the way it is, so please dont quote me as saying things that i never.

I apologise and don't wish to argue with you about it, but my point is that as long as people shrug and say "That's the way things are", it's hard to see how they'll change.

We have now moved on from the days when women were expected to resign on marriage (never mind having children), and it would be nice to think we could be considered for a job on our merits rather than our lack of breeding potential or reliability of our childcare arrangements.

It could also be very hurtful if someone having problems conceiving was asked whether they intended to have children.

In a previous job, we'd offered someone a student placement. She accepted, then a few weeks before she was due to start she phoned to say she was very sorry, but she'd just found out she was expecting twins, she was gutted to let us down but they'd been trying for years, and because she had had such problems she'd been trying to get on with her life and see what happened. The student who replaced her was nowhere near as strong a candidate and a bit of a disaster.

So should we only have offered placements to chaps to avoid the disruption? I don't think so. This lady might not have conceived for another year or two, and we'd have had an excellent student. Hopefully she's now back in the field (if she wants to be), and she's likely to be far better at her job than the chap who replaced her.

It's a natural human reaction for businesses to be wary of employing people in similar situations to staff they've had previous problems with. But it's a very short-sighted view. Men sustain serious injuries playing rugby more often than women - shall we not employ men who play rugby? Men injure themselves falling off step-ladders - shall we not employ men who change lightbulbs or do DIY? Men as well as women are entitled to ask for family friendly hours - shall we no longer employ men with children either? Men are sometimes lone fathers - should we not ask this at interview too?

Employing a new member of staff is always a bit of a gamble. You can sift and sort all you like, you still don't know what's going to happen to that person in the future. Even people without children may have family problems which require them to drop everything at a moment's notice. Even previously healthy people may become seriously ill, require surgery, or fall under a bus.

So why not get the best person - the most qualified, the most competent - NOW, and worry about the future if and when it happens?

BTW, I agree that there may have been other, perfectly sound reasons why the OP didn't get the job. I wouldn't even ASK if those reasons had been held against me, but I WOULD want to make that charity aware that their interview process is SERIOUSLY flawed - because next time, someone may just decide to take it all the way, which is hardly in the charity's best interests?

acemoola

This is not Age Concern, indeed a very local charity. Unfortunately it was a member of the board of trustees, who was clearly a bigot on all areas, that asked the question.
Following on from all the very interesting and mostly helpful replies, I'm going to phone ACAS and or the Employment Tribunal next week to see what I can, but I think that I have quite a good case.
I feel really in a twix about doing this though, it'd for a charity who bascially help the over 50's feel less isolated, a cause I feel passionately about, and I would feel awful if it collapsed through something I had done.
But as my husband also said, they were almost emotionally blackmailing me in the interview, by saying that if I got got pregnant in this position the charity would be on it's knees - which I would feel really bad about.
But I have to think more broadly about this - it's fundamentally wrong and illegal and extremely distasteful.
The chap who posed the question was about 70 and a trustee - but - I feel he should be treated fairly and feel the consequences of his discrimatory actions.
I am tired of being treated like a leper tring to get a part-time job and wanting to have children!!!
Thanks for all your help.

Savvy_Sue

Just because the person asking these questions was a member of the board of trustees doesn't mean you can't complain to the Chairman of the Board.

Indeed, I think the charity should have a complaints policy - you could phone and ask if they do.

If they also use volunteers and are a member of any local voluntary organisations, they are also likely to take a very dim view of this.

Spendless

ohreally wrote: »

Was your complaint made to the charity or a relevant enforcement agency?

My 'complaint' was to the charity, but not the office that interviewed me. I can't remember if it was their HO or regional office, but it was the place that had placed the advert in the first place, to their HR dept. The letter I got back, explained the circumstances in which the situation arose, one of the interviewers had never interviewed before, the original person had pulled out last minute and said that they had reviewed their procedure and that all their staff had to attend training in interview procedure before being allowed to interview in future. I did say in my letter I wasn't formally complaining but I wished to fetch the matter to their attention, and that was the response I got back, along with an apology.

acemoola- that's how they made me feel, which is why I'm glad I wrote my letter. I have PM'd you.

Savvy_Sue

of finding out if a potential employee is actually pregnant, and that is to ask ALL potential employees to complete a medical form, on which you ask if they are under the care of a doctor or other medical professional.

You can either do this BEFORE interview, or make any job offer conditional on satisfactory completion of the medical questionnaire. Both ways have their disadvantages ... I found the Civil Service's medical form so intrusive I decided I didn't want to work for them, and if you have two plausible candidates you might lose both if the first one you offer the job to either declines to answer the questionnaire or doesn't appear to be in good health, and the second one is no longer interested in your company by the time you offer them the job.

You still can't come out and ask "Is that a midwife you're seeing?" so you'd end up guessing, and you wouldn't necessarily know why a chap was seeing a medical professional. Although if I was given such a form, I would spell out why I was under the care of a medical professional to make it clear I wasn't pregnant. Is seeing a neurosurgeon after removal of a brain tumour better or worse than being of child-bearing years, I wonder?

And of course it doesn't help you answer the question "Is this lady going to run off and start a family next week?"

The 'other' another way is to make sure someone has a friendly chat with all potential employees on the way in and out of the building. Of course it would be quite wrong to use any information gleaned in this way as part of the formal assessment process, and canny interviewees will be wise to this ploy anyway, but it has its uses! In particular canny interviewees will let it be known that their family is complete, thank you very much, or confirm that yes, there is a young man behind the decision to throw up a better paid job in London to come and work in Surrey!

brazilianwax

acemoola wrote: »

I'm really suprised that the last poster said that she didn't mind about being asked about having children. Maybe you will have a different opinion when you have children of your own and you find people are evaluating you on whether you may or may not have maternity leave.

I'm sure you meant 'if' not 'when'. :rolleyes:

Spendless

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Is seeing a neurosurgeon after removal of a brain tumour better or worse than being of child-bearing years, I wonder?

hmmm well having both (only just I am 40;) ), the council has certainly rang me before querying more details about my benign tumour (had got job as relief school dinner lady) I wonder too. BUT I think I can be discharged next year,it'll be 6 years after op. Another reason to put job hunting off for another year.