Despite all of the blood curdling legal terms and threats, discrimination in recruitment has always been viewed as flexible.
Some people make a decision based on age, sex, looks and cover it with terms like ‘not enough experience’, ‘not a culture fit’, which is what I mean by flexible. As long as you don’t say it, you don’t get into trouble.
Now as harsh and awful as this sounds, this type of discrimination isn’t what you usually associate with the heinous crime. Here are examples:
I need a candidate 30 years plus because we need some credibility with our clients that comes with age. They aren’t saying, young people suck and I hate them. In their mind, they are making a business decision.
I think a female would be good in this position. We really need that mothering, nurturing person for this team. Not, I hate men. But I am looking for a behavioural trait.
Often, as a candidate you may not even realise you have been a victim of this. The decision has been made prior to your application and you are simply left with a generic email in response to your unread application.
So where do morals come in to this? As a recruiter, I think it comes down to reading between the lines and understanding how someone has come to the conclusion of what they want and delivering on that without considering the discriminative job brief provided.
Engage your emotional intelligence and look past it, let’s not assume the world is full of sexist old bastards and archaic staunch women.