Rate this!
Jill Kettle
Member - 9 posts
Surely the company should have thought about training the employee up to a standard they required. This would probably be more cost effective in the long term and there was the possibility then that they would have a loyal long serving grateful employee.
There are times when I despair of HR people not giving the right info to employers.
Terry
Rate this!
Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts
The company clearly knew her age and experience when they interviewed her and subsequently appointed her to the post.
I think its about time someone challenged this.
You are quite right Terry when you say she could have recieved training and they could have receved a well trained loyal employee.
Rate this!
James Fairchild
Member - 210 posts
I hate to say this, but the company could have probably avoided all this by using words such as experience (in X, Y and Z) instead of young/mature.
The award sounds high though. Without trying to age-discriminate myself, it sounds like it could well be a years' salary for (erm) the type of job-spec that the company had put together.
Rate this!
Daniel Sweeney
Member - 9 posts
I havent seen the judgement yet, just the reports and comments however employers need to bear in mind that its new regulations, and the tribunals may , quite rightly, be sending out a clear message: Age discrimination is unacceptable and will be costly. We cannot legislate against sin, but we can attach tangible consequences to the act. If I can paraphrase Lord Soper, you can say (or do) what you like, but watch out for legal Karma .
In any event, its in the mid band of the Vento scale so they got away fairly easily. Its a pity the Tribunals and County Courts (GFS Cases) didn't set the markers down clearly in a similar fashion in the early years of the DDA.
0 (0)
