<< Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 01:40:05 -0000
From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
Subject: illegal age discrimination
<< And if there was a 40+n candidate, these grounds for hiring a younger person
are illegal age discrimination, actionable, and indeed probably wilful, as
long as your employer isn't a state government agency. --jks
It never actually came down to a black and white choice between the younger and older candidate, because the older woman took herself out of the running after the interview. My point was that people who are rejected for jobs may have a feeling that factors like race or age affected the decision, but usually they'll never know for sure. The relevant conversations take place behind closed doors. So if they voice their suspicions, it's easy for observers to say they're just rationalizing their failure. As wojek seemed to be saying. There's no evidence of discrimination, and wouldn't be unless someone on the inside (e.g. the hiring committee) decided to complain.
Les
>
>Except, of course, when they're not (rationalizations). Case in point: My
>department just hired a new dietitian. A recent grad was chosen. One of the
>points in her favor: she'd be "less set in her ways" and would "fit in
>better" than an over-40 and more experienced candidate. Well, those are, I
>suppose, somewhat valid points - but nothing to do with her actual skills.
> >>