Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Age discriminationEmployment lawEquality, diversity and inclusion

Looking for ‘experienced’ staff could lead to age discrimination tribunal

by Personnel Today 26 Mar 2008
by Personnel Today 26 Mar 2008

“You can’t win anything with kids”, Alan Hansen, BBC football pundit, famously announced before Manchester United’s “kids” went on to win the Premier League and FA Cup double. Thirteen years on, an employment tribunal in Newcastle-upon-Tyne has shown that it, too, believes Hansen to be wrong.

Last month it ruled in favour of Leanne Wilkinson, an 18-year-old who was dismissed from her job as an administrative assistant because she was too young and inexperienced. She complained that she had been discriminated on grounds of her age under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.

What does the case tell us? It reminds us that the age regulations are not just there to protect older people – they make it unlawful to discriminate against anyone, young or old, on grounds of age.

But the real interest lies in the implications for employers in assessing the aptitude of employees (or candidates) for a job. At the heart of the tribunal’s decision was its finding that the company had based its decision on a “stereotypical assumption that capability equals experience and experience equals older age”.

Two different, but interrelated, forms of discrimination were in play here. To dismiss Wilkinson because she is too young is direct discrimination. To dismiss her because she lacks experience is potentially indirect discrimination: the requirement that she has a certain level of experience is harder for her to fulfil than an older person. Either form of discrimination can be justified, on the grounds that the discriminatory treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

It is a fair point, in principle, that we should not treat people less favourably than others because of stereotypical assumptions about them. However, there is a danger that, to avoid claims, an unrealistic burden will be placed on employers to collect and evaluate objective evidence before making any decision.

Is the correlation between experience and capability really an unjustified stereotype? In many cases experience does count for a lot. We all learn as we go along: from our successes and our failures. In my job experience has always been regarded as a key indicator of a certain level of expertise: the legal profession has always attached weight to post-qualification experience. In asking for a barrister of, say, 1992 qualification, the client is unlikely to be doing so because that was a good year, or because he has a penchant for 40-somethings. He uses post-qualification experience as shorthand for capability.

Of course, there may be people who do a job for years, and never get the hang of it. There may be jobs (and administrative assistant may be one) where little experience is needed to learn the ropes. Often, however, experience is a reliable shorthand for a certain level of capability. Why shouldn’t an advertisement require a certain number of years’ experience, if it is a safe bet that without those years experience, a candidate would be unlikely to be able to do the job?

If the use of “shorthand” such as an experience requirement is not permissible, employers may have to carry out a laborious process of individual assessment of every single candidate’s aptitude for the job to avoid the risk of a claim. That process will be not only expensive, but also time-consuming. They may come to exactly the same decision as if they had applied an experience “threshold”.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Fine in an ideal world – in the real world we may all grow old while we are waiting.

Key points



  • Age discrimination laws protect both the young and old from discrimination
  • Discrimination can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
  • The test of justification is vague, and difficult to predict
  • Employers should avoid stereotypical assumptions as to the impact of age and experience on ability
  • Employers may be driven to laborious assessment processes to avoid the risk of being found to have acted on unjustified assumptions



Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Top universities oppose business-friendly degrees
next post
CVs and interviews alone are not accurate enough to assess job applicants

You may also like

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Fewer workers would comply with a return-to-office mandate

21 May 2025

Redefining leadership: From competence to inclusion

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Culture, ‘micro-incivilities’ and invisible talent

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+