In fact the Tribunal deliberately exaggerated Ms Keane’s age, in her case in London and in the Watford Case by saying that she was “a woman aged over 50”. In fact Ms Keane was 48 years old when she took her cases to the tribunal in order to challenge age discrimination. |
The ruling in Ms Keane's case suggests Tribunals are more concerned with upholding the rights of recruitment agencies to discriminate than they are with applying this new legislation. Judge's Ryan and Lewzey make it quite clear that older candidates should not apply for jobs currently reserved for younger candidates especially if they feel that they could do the role better than the younger candidates being targeted and recruited. The Tribunal has made it clear that should a “50 year old woman” wishing to return to her career or make a career change apply for such a role, her application need not be considered and if she should claim this as age discrimination she should be branded “not a genuine job applicant” and denied her rights under this legislation or indeed under any legislation. |
1. Use this site to expose discrimination in accountancy recruitment |
In November 2008 Ms Keane brought a case against several recruitment agencies who were using discriminatory advertising and what happened to her in the Employment Tribunal process demonstrates clearly that the Employment Tribunal consider that this legislation is there to be used only by younger people who believe they have been discriminated against and not by 50 year old women. |
The fight to get the regulations applied in the Employment Tribunals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The introduction of the age discrimination in October, 2006, should have changed all this because it is now unlawful for an employer to deny someone a job, training or promotion on the basis of their age. Yet financial recruitment agencies continue to discriminate
|
|
|
|
|