Middle-aged father, 50, wins £7,500 payout after being rejected for £40,000-a-year NHS job because he wouldn't fit in with 'millennial' women who work

[Metaphor]

Though the gender politics aspect of this story is of interest to me, I'm more interested in the age discrimination aspect and the 'best fit' excuse for discrimination.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cted-NHS-job-millennial-women-colleagues.html

A middle-aged father has won a £7,500 payout in an age and sex discrimination case after being rejected for an NHS job because he wouldn't fit in with the 'millennial' women who already worked at the trust.

Despite being the best-performing candidate in an interview and scoring highest on all the tests, Neil McClements, 50, was rejected for a project manager post after potential colleagues at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS trust in London were consulted on his application.

A hearing was told they thought the father-of-two was 'nothing like' the young woman he would be replacing and they felt he wouldn't fit in.
So, a much younger female candidate in her 20s was selected instead, even though she had performed less well in her interview.
The role - which paid around £40,000 a year - involved helping the health service adapt to new technology more quickly.
Members of the team were predominantly female and aged between 30 and 32, with one doctor describing herself as a millennial on social media. Others were known to support social justice causes including feminism and gender equality.

Compared to the other candidates, Mr McClements achieved the highest scores from the combined panel, which included Dr Charlotte Lee, who he would report to, and Jenny Thomas, programme director.

When Mr McClements was called to be informed he had not been successful, he was told it was because Dr Lee, his would-be-boss, felt uncomfortable giving instructions to someone who had an 11-year-old daughter.
She also told him: 'Better to employ someone at an early stage of their career as they would then progress to develop their career over a longer period elsewhere in the NHS.'
...

 

[jab]

Though the gender politics aspect of this story is of interest to me, I'm more interested in the age discrimination aspect and the 'best fit' excuse for discrimination.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cted-NHS-job-millennial-women-colleagues.html

A middle-aged father has won a £7,500 payout in an age and sex discrimination case after being rejected for an NHS job because he wouldn't fit in with the 'millennial' women who already worked at the trust.

Despite being the best-performing candidate in an interview and scoring highest on all the tests, Neil McClements, 50, was rejected for a project manager post after potential colleagues at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS trust in London were consulted on his application.

A hearing was told they thought the father-of-two was 'nothing like' the young woman he would be replacing and they felt he wouldn't fit in.
So, a much younger female candidate in her 20s was selected instead, even though she had performed less well in her interview.
The role - which paid around £40,000 a year - involved helping the health service adapt to new technology more quickly.
Members of the team were predominantly female and aged between 30 and 32, with one doctor describing herself as a millennial on social media. Others were known to support social justice causes including feminism and gender equality.

Compared to the other candidates, Mr McClements achieved the highest scores from the combined panel, which included Dr Charlotte Lee, who he would report to, and Jenny Thomas, programme director.

When Mr McClements was called to be informed he had not been successful, he was told it was because Dr Lee, his would-be-boss, felt uncomfortable giving instructions to someone who had an 11-year-old daughter.
She also told him: 'Better to employ someone at an early stage of their career as they would then progress to develop their career over a longer period elsewhere in the NHS.'
...

1. ageism is rife in professional hirings
2. ageism is rife in the woke, "social justice" world

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

When Mr McClements was called to be informed he had not been successful, he was told it was because Dr Lee, his would-be-boss, felt uncomfortable giving instructions to someone who had an 11-year-old daughter.
She also told him: 'Better to employ someone at an early stage of their career as they would then progress to develop their career over a longer period elsewhere in the NHS.'

Strange. I'm in favour of telling candidates why they didn't get a job, but not if the reasons are discriminatory. The best way to avoid telling candidates you didn't hire them for discriminatory reasons is to not discriminate. The second reason doesn't even make much sense. At 50, McClements would likely have another ten to fifteen years working. There is no guarantee any new hire will stay with the NHS that long, and even if they did, not all of them will be able to really develop their careers into new avenues.

I've had the reverse issue. My brother, who worked at the company I was applying to, gave me a referral. The hiring manager told him if they knew how old I was initially, they wouldn't have called me for the interview (could have been a joke or literal; who knows). In my round one interview, my age came up. I was told they were worried about it. I was like, "What can I do? I can't not be twenty-three? It's not up to me, but give me a little time and I'll work on it." In the second round interview, I made up some stuff about how my age was beneficial. I got the job, but it's unsettling that candidates have to account for stuff they either can't control or no person reasonably should expect them to, like having a daughter.

Certainly, there are other nonsense ways employers discriminate which aren't generally protected. For instance, someone who made an $80k salary applying for a $35k salary job may be ruled out because someone decided they wouldn't be happy taking the step backward in pay. But honestly, that's the candidate's fucking call whether it matters to them. If you aren't psychic, stfu about that armchair psychology bullshit.

 

[Metaphor]

When Mr McClements was called to be informed he had not been successful, he was told it was because Dr Lee, his would-be-boss, felt uncomfortable giving instructions to someone who had an 11-year-old daughter.
She also told him: 'Better to employ someone at an early stage of their career as they would then progress to develop their career over a longer period elsewhere in the NHS.'

Strange. I'm in favour of telling candidates why they didn't get a job, but not if the reasons are discriminatory. The best way to avoid telling candidates you didn't hire them for discriminatory reasons is to not discriminate. The second reason doesn't even make much sense. At 50, McClements would likely have another ten to fifteen years working. There is no guarantee any new hire will stay with the NHS that long, and even if they did, not all of them will be able to really develop their careers into new avenues.

I've had the reverse issue. My brother, who worked at the company I was applying to, gave me a referral. The hiring manager told him if they knew how old I was initially, they wouldn't have called me for the interview (could have been a joke or literal; who knows). In my round one interview, my age came up. I was told they were worried about it. I was like, "What can I do? I can't not be twenty-three? It's not up to me, but give me a little time and I'll work on it." In the second round interview, I made up some stuff about how my age was beneficial. I got the job, but it's unsettling that candidates have to account for stuff they either can't control or no person reasonably should expect them to, like having a daughter.

If you read the entire article, it speculates that the daughter business was just a very strange and circumlocutory way for the boss to say "I am uncomfortable managing someone older than me", which, I have to say, makes her a really poor fucking boss.

There's ageism that discriminates against younger candidates but this might be hard to distinguish from the inexperience disadvantage. Youth unemployment is always the highest demographic of unemployment, but young people can move into employment relatively quickly.

But if you lose your job at 50 or 55, you are fucked. Unemployment in this age group is the lowest overall but if you become unemployed, you may stay that way for months, years, or until you qualify for an age pension.

 

[Jarhyn]

Though the gender politics aspect of this story is of interest to me, I'm more interested in the age discrimination aspect and the 'best fit' excuse for discrimination.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cted-NHS-job-millennial-women-colleagues.html

A middle-aged father has won a £7,500 payout in an age and sex discrimination case after being rejected for an NHS job because he wouldn't fit in with the 'millennial' women who already worked at the trust.

Despite being the best-performing candidate in an interview and scoring highest on all the tests, Neil McClements, 50, was rejected for a project manager post after potential colleagues at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS trust in London were consulted on his application.

A hearing was told they thought the father-of-two was 'nothing like' the young woman he would be replacing and they felt he wouldn't fit in.
So, a much younger female candidate in her 20s was selected instead, even though she had performed less well in her interview.
The role - which paid around £40,000 a year - involved helping the health service adapt to new technology more quickly.
Members of the team were predominantly female and aged between 30 and 32, with one doctor describing herself as a millennial on social media. Others were known to support social justice causes including feminism and gender equality.

Compared to the other candidates, Mr McClements achieved the highest scores from the combined panel, which included Dr Charlotte Lee, who he would report to, and Jenny Thomas, programme director.

When Mr McClements was called to be informed he had not been successful, he was told it was because Dr Lee, his would-be-boss, felt uncomfortable giving instructions to someone who had an 11-year-old daughter.
She also told him: 'Better to employ someone at an early stage of their career as they would then progress to develop their career over a longer period elsewhere in the NHS.'
...

1. ageism is rife in professional hirings
2. ageism is rife in the woke, "social justice" world

I wouldn't expect ageism to be "rife" perse. I do expect many age-comorbid factors to make certain individuals so as to be "unemployable", with an increasing likelihood that correlates badly with age.

For instance I wouldn't hire any man that calls a female colleague "toots" or "sweets", and the fact of reality is that the only people I would probably see doing this are over the age of 45. Does that mean I discriminate against men over 45? No, it means I discriminate against people who patronize (or, for that matter, those who Matronize) people at work.

You very much seem to want to accuse people of ageism in general, but you can't.

At best, you can accuse one NHS worker of being ageist, and even that is a stretch as she noted other factors, namely his viewpoint compatibilities. I suspect she did a very bad job of communicating this and perhaps that too is an indication that the hiring manager herself didn't fit the role. It's not legal in most places to discriminate on whether someone has children, either, after all.

But here's the big takeaway

CASE STUDY DOES NOT ESTABLISH TREND. this happening in this one place in time does not establish the claims made by the OP: that Ageism is "rife" in either setting.

 

[Metaphor]

1. ageism is rife in professional hirings
2. ageism is rife in the woke, "social justice" world

I wouldn't expect ageism to be "rife" perse. I do expect many age-comorbid factors to make certain individuals so as to be "unemployable", with an increasing likelihood that correlates badly with age.

For instance I wouldn't hire any man that calls a female colleague "toots" or "sweets", and the fact of reality is that the only people I would probably see doing this are over the age of 45. Does that mean I discriminate against men over 45? No, it means I discriminate against people who patronize (or, for that matter, those who Matronize) people at work.

You very much seem to want to accuse people of ageism in general, but you can't.

At best, you can accuse one NHS worker of being ageist, and even that is a stretch as she noted other factors, namely his viewpoint compatibilities. I suspect she did a very bad job of communicating this and perhaps that too is an indication that the hiring manager herself didn't fit the role. It's not legal in most places to discriminate on whether someone has children, either, after all.

But here's the big takeaway

CASE STUDY DOES NOT ESTABLISH TREND. this happening in this one place in time does not establish the claims made by the OP: that Ageism is "rife" in either setting.

Ageism in employment is rampant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But here's the big takeaway

CASE STUDY DOES NOT ESTABLISH TREND. this happening in this one place in time does not establish the claims made by the OP: that Ageism is "rife" in either setting.

True, but we have plenty of data on this from elsewhere.

 

[Jarhyn]

But here's the big takeaway

CASE STUDY DOES NOT ESTABLISH TREND. this happening in this one place in time does not establish the claims made by the OP: that Ageism is "rife" in either setting.

True, but we have plenty of data on this from elsewhere.

Then present it, as a quantitative comparison against some populational control, that it is in fact ageism and not viewpoint expression that drives it? You keep insisting on such studies for "economic factors vs race" and we give them readily up in well controlled studies that you handily reject, so maybe you can pony one up?

I will reserve every right to be critical of whether the conclusions lead where you claim.

 

[Rhea]

The parts of the article quoted n the OP show a situation that is wrong and unfair. As a person who hires late career employees I think they are wrong and are missing a huge benefit of having a diverse workforce. Functionally, I find my 50yo+ hires are determined and hardworking as they tend to want to do well at THIS job and aren’t auditioning for the next job.

 

[laughing dog]

But here's the big takeaway

CASE STUDY DOES NOT ESTABLISH TREND. this happening in this one place in time does not establish the claims made by the OP: that Ageism is "rife" in either setting.

True, but we have plenty of data on this from elsewhere.

How come in your world, "age" is not proxy for other variables but "race" is?

 

[WAB]

When Mr McClements was called to be informed he had not been successful, he was told it was because Dr Lee, his would-be-boss, felt uncomfortable giving instructions to someone who had an 11-year-old daughter.
She also told him: 'Better to employ someone at an early stage of their career as they would then progress to develop their career over a longer period elsewhere in the NHS.'

Strange. I'm in favour of telling candidates why they didn't get a job, but not if the reasons are discriminatory. The best way to avoid telling candidates you didn't hire them for discriminatory reasons is to not discriminate. The second reason doesn't even make much sense. At 50, McClements would likely have another ten to fifteen years working. There is no guarantee any new hire will stay with the NHS that long, and even if they did, not all of them will be able to really develop their careers into new avenues.

I've had the reverse issue. My brother, who worked at the company I was applying to, gave me a referral. The hiring manager told him if they knew how old I was initially, they wouldn't have called me for the interview (could have been a joke or literal; who knows). In my round one interview, my age came up. I was told they were worried about it. I was like, "What can I do? I can't not be twenty-three? It's not up to me, but give me a little time and I'll work on it." In the second round interview, I made up some stuff about how my age was beneficial. I got the job, but it's unsettling that candidates have to account for stuff they either can't control or no person reasonably should expect them to, like having a daughter.

If you read the entire article, it speculates that the daughter business was just a very strange and circumlocutory way for the boss to say "I am uncomfortable managing someone older than me", which, I have to say, makes her a really poor fucking boss.

There's ageism that discriminates against younger candidates but this might be hard to distinguish from the inexperience disadvantage. Youth unemployment is always the highest demographic of unemployment, but young people can move into employment relatively quickly.

But if you lose your job at 50 or 55, you are fucked. Unemployment in this age group is the lowest overall but if you become unemployed, you may stay that way for months, years, or until you qualify for an age pension.

Or one could settle for nametag and a hairnet? If the MW goes to 15 in the U.S., one can scapple by.

Sucks, but doable.

 

[laughing dog]

Seems to me that the judgment award seems pretty small.