A majority of organisations in the UK say that they adhere to the the Equality Act 2010 which protects against unlawful discrimination.
With a rise in employment tribunal claims it’s quite evident discrimination still occurs but with little accountability for organisations and more of a detrimental effect to victimised employees .
Discrimination can be direct and indirect but unlawful indirect discrimination seems to be something a majority of organisations have learnt to get away with.
Applicants can be discriminated against through online avenues through employers rejecting applicants because of their photo exhibiting racial discrimination, name and other protected characteristics ticked in a box said to be intended to not discriminate…
Employers can not acknowledge applicants applications they feel are not a “fit” to their organisation with unclear vague reasoning which constitutes to discrimination in a covert manner.
Many employers subtly discriminate against employees through unfavourable treatment due to a protected characteristic.
Employers do this by paying you less than your comparator. With direct discrimination this is someone who does not share your same protected characteristics for a similar role but are being paid and treated more favourably more than yourself leading to potential harassment and bullying.
This is quite common with employees with under two years service as without employment rights employers can dismiss employees which could be owing to discrimination therefore unfair treatment without two years service can only be challenged if it is owing to discrimination which is an ‘automatically unfair reason’ that is why it is vital to make a record of any acts of discrimination.
Be cautious and seek legal advice as many employers have finances for legal defence that may help them successfully defend a case in a tribunal.
If you do not build a strong enough case which is done by making note of witnesses of the acts of discrimination , the dates it occurred and location.
Free advice can be sought at ACAS .
Whether it is a telephone screening with an organisation or an interview in person employers still unlawfully discriminate.
Employers will know before calling candidates that they have no intention of moving the candidate onto the next stage of the recruitment process. This is to give the perception that they have given a fair recruitment process but this really and truly is a waste of time and hope for many candidates.
Employers or recruiters will call a candidate for a telephone screening in which they will ask questions and prey on weaknesses such as your experience not being enough or your qualifications held not being enough to progress.
But were these not reviewed during the shortlisting process for the telephone screening to take place?
In the face to face interviews there is also some more time wasting and discrimination for some candidates . The panel will potentially be nice and this is mainly because they know they are not giving you the job so the treatment at interview is to compensate for this.
Thanks but no thanks.
You leave the interview feeling you did well you answering their questions , maintaining eye contact and maintaining positive body language . But that was not enough the employer will say they went with a stronger ‘more suited’ candidate or that you were not a ‘culture fit’.
Culture fit ?
What assessment did you really make of candidates to determine if they will be a culture fit , before meeting them or meeting them for half an hour?
Does work ethic , tacit and explicit knowledge no longer matter to an organisation for candidates or employees because of prejudice and protected characteristics?
The use of the term ‘culture’ fit has been used more like a synonym for discrimination and this conscious and unconscious bias is subtle but consistent and needs to come to an end with real accountability for employers who consistently discriminate other than just financial repercussions.