The Employers’ Forum on Age, who conducted the research, said the figures reveal ‘unconscious discrimination’ as people tend to recruit workers similar to themselves or others in their company.
In total, over a third of respondents felt they have been discriminated against when trying to move company or applying for a more senior position in the same company. Age is the most common reason (17%), closely followed by favouritism (16%).
Stephen Elliott, a Partner in Employment Law at Langleys, said: “These figures reveal that there is a very big issue in the world of work for those who feel they could be victims of ageism or prejudice, leaving employees open to potential discrimination claims.”
The study also found that almost two thirds (62%) of employees said that all, most or some of their colleagues are similar to them. When asked what it is they had in common with their co-workers, age was found to be the most common factor (68%), followed by gender (62%) and social background (53%).
Stephen said: “I have just been instructed in a matter where an individual approaching retirement age is alleging age discrimination because he was not invited to second interview for a manager's position. One of the reasons given was that he did not seem to "fit" with the team but the explanation of exactly what this meant has been difficult to pin down. The fact that the successful candidate is in his early 20s has produced the inevitable conclusion.”
Stephen added: “It’s difficult to address unconscious discrimination in equality and diversity policies, but not impossible to do so in practice. The correct training for interviewers cannot be overemphasised, nor can the importance of being able to explain exactly what concepts like "team fit" actually mean - how they translate into attributes which can be measured and assessed. Documentation is a key for employers who are in a position where they have to defend themselves against discrimination claims. Interview scripts, notes of answers and scoring matrices for example are crucial so that the employer is not left in an evidential vacuum.”