Both of these cases relate to the same promotion competition held by the Department.  Both the complainants are over 50 and they assert that they were unsuccessful in the preliminary round of interviews because of their age.  Four staff based in their area over 50 were unsuccessful in the preliminary interviews while six of 7 under the age of 45 progressed.

The case is a reminder of how these situations are addressed.  The Adjudicator considered the number (and percentage) of people over 50 who applied for the competition and compared it to the figure (and percentage) who were successful in the preliminary round.  She also included the reminder that it is not a matter for the Commission to decide who is the most meritorious candidate.  Rather, it should determine whether the complainant was discriminated against on any of the grounds outlined in the Act.

The Adjudicator stated:

“In examining the breakdown of successful candidates provided by the respondent it is clear that 55 candidates applied, of which 29 were successful following the preliminary interview stage.  Of the 55 who applied, 11 or 20% were over 50.  Of the 11 people in the over 50 age group who applied, 4 were successful.  This represents 30% of the over 50 age group who were successful.  This does not substantiate a claim that the complainant was unsuccessful due to her being over 50 as others in this age group were successful.”

The complainants raised other issues, such as their panel only submitting 9 names where the other panels submitted 10. Neither of them was the next nearest candidate and so even if 10 had been submitted it would not have included either of them.

Interestingly, the complainant’s referred to their extensive experience but this was not accepted as being the same as being the best-qualified candidate.

Why is this case of interest?