Reply to: Age discrimination

[Peoplesoft bloke]

You sound like a burger albeit an old burger

grumpy, too.

[DodgyAgent]

That's me flipped too.

You sound like a burger albeit an old burger

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Old workers should be discriminated against

That's me flipped too.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I blame the employment tribunal. Also companies have no spine and cave in rather than face her in court. They should sue her for fraud.

As someone with experience in this area - I blame the lawyers. The plain truth is that the process of any kind of legal action in this country is so slow and expensive that, particularly if you are a small outfit, your choices are to carry on running the company and pay off scum like this parasite, or risk bankrupting the company to fight totally spurious crap this kind, knowing that you may lose anyway. The only winners are lawyers and scum. The only casualties are truth and common sense. (All in my humble opinion of course - but based on the near collapse of a previous employer brought about by one scummy employee)

[DodgyAgent]

that's me fliped

And they should be discriminated for EO

[EternalOptimist]

Old workers should be discriminated against

that's me fecked

[DodgyAgent]

Old workers should be discriminated against

[Bagpuss]

The first fact is a good reason to turn her down, but the second isn't.

Didn't she do that on purpose though?

[Cyberman]

Good luck to her. She is doing us oldies a favour by highlighting rampant age discrimination.

[Unicorn]

Phrases

Isn't the point that if her date of birth was omitted then how could the clients have age-discriminated against her, as they didn't know her age?

Simple, the companies asked for newly qualified. A CV with no age but with 25years employment history (or dates when school/university completed) make it fairly easy to determine age.

Fact is these companies should have binned her for a rubbish CV and gone to the tribunal. However, when the costs exceed a payoff it makes commercial sense to stump up the payoff.

[OwlHoot]

The first fact is a good reason to turn her down, but the second isn't.

Isn't the point that if her date of birth was omitted then how could the clients have age-discriminated against her, as they didn't know her age?

[Mich the Tester]

the 50-year-old's CV was littered with spelling mistakes and did not include her date of birth.

The first fact is a good reason to turn her down, but the second isn't.

[lilelvis2000]

I could use some extra cash...hmmmmm

[swamp]

I blame the employment tribunal. Also companies have no spine and cave in rather than face her in court. They should sue her for fraud.

[DodgyAgent]

I hope she wins.

You old git