A survey of 200 job advertisements has found that 21 per cent were potentially ageist and 27 per cent could be viewed as containing some form of discrimination.
The results of the research, by law firm DWF, come one year after the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations came into force.
In terms of industry, the survey found that the retail sector was the worst offender, with 37 per cent of all adverts containing some form of discrimination, according to the report. In HR-related jobs, 32 per cent of adverts contained potential discrimination, compared to 26 per cent in the leisure sector and 16 per cent in finance.
“An additional problem, particular in the leisure and retail sectors, is that some employers ask for candidates who are ‘lively’, ‘energetic’, ‘enthusiastic’ or ‘dynamic’,” said Kirsty Rogers, employment partner at DWF. “Such terms can all be viewed as discriminating against older people or those with disabilities.”
The findings also revealed that 12 per cent of the adverts surveyed specified a minimum level of experience, which, according to the survey authors, could rule out younger people who may be equally capable of carrying out the role.
Rogers added: “Sloppy wording within advertisements is leaving employers open to tribunal claims. Job candidates can bring a claim on the basis of an advert even though they are not employed by the company. We advise employers to review any current adverts and the policies that they follow before publicising a position to ensure that they limit this risk.”
HR Zone recently reported that ageism is still prevalent in the workplace, according to new research.
2 Responses
It’s more than just the words!
An additional, and perhaps more important, question to ask yourselves when thinking about using such words for selecting employees is how can you accurately determine or measure whether someone is “lively”, “energetic”, “enthusiastic” or “dynamic” during the selection process? There are some “qualities” that appear in adverts and person specifications that are more wishful thinking than testable and non-discriminatory criteria.
Another day, another load of nonsense
How are the words “lively, energetic, enthusiastic, or dynamic” discriminatory towards the older worker or the disabled. I’ve often worked with colleagues in their 50’s, 60’s and even 70’s and one occasion in their 80’s who were lively, energetic, enthusiastic and dynamic.
I’ve also worked with disabled colleagues who fit the bill here, I’m technically disabled (I can register as disabled should I choose to do so) but I’d like to think I’m lively, energetic, enthusiastic and dynamic too.
There’s discrimination here – but I don’t think it’s from employers.
Minimum experience levels are another thing, but as long as they are reasonable (e.g. not 10 – 20 years but a year or two) than I don’t think you’d have much chance of a claim paying off their either.
Sloppy surveys and twisted logic can lead to panic in a profession that far too often doesn’t consider the “facts” but rushes off on “feelings” but then what do I know?