Employment Agencies and Age Discrimination

[Lady Python]

Not sure if I'm putting this in the correct forum or not so mods feel free to move.

 

As it's now illegal for employers to discriminate on the grounds of age (ha-ha), having been registered for work, both temporary and permanent with a few of the agencies, I have come to the conclusion that the agencies filter out people over the age of 50 for jobs.

 

Time and time again I have seen the agencies I am registered with advertising jobs that I am more than capable of doing yet never get put forward for them. When I do, like the other week got a starting date then the day before I was due to start got a phone call from the agency saying that the employer had taken on someone permanent.

 

Last week, they phoned about the same job, saying the company needed temporary cover, sent me the details of the times and days I would work...then the day before phoned up with exactly the same excuse - the employer has taken on someone permanent (what again? - if you're going to lie, please don't use the same excuse twice).

 

What I'd like to know is has anyone else had a similar experience(s) and who, if anyone, regulates these employment agencies.

[Lady Python]

My son attended interview the other day for a job.

 

The interview went very well but he has been turned down for the following reason:

 

That due to the long period that he did not work due to medical problems (renal dialysis), they decided he would not be able to keep up with the workload which is absolute rubbish. It was an office administration job for a well known major DIY company.

 

My son is a kidney transplantee and is now very healthy and fit.

 

I feel they have discriminated against him on spurious health grounds which I thought was illegal.

 

Can anyone advise on this matter please?

[Nystagmite]

Do they have any evidence that he wouldn't be able to keep up? I'm surprised they said that, instead of something like "we found someone more experienced". (he wouldn't be able to prove whether they were lying and wouldn't have a case for discrimination)

[Lady Python]

Do they have any evidence that he wouldn't be able to keep up? I'm surprised they said that, instead of something like "we found someone more experienced". (he wouldn't be able to prove whether they were lying and wouldn't have a case for discrimination)

 

Seemingly, this is what they told the woman at the Work Programme but whether or not they would get involved in a discrimination case, I don't know.

 

What I do know is they've let a very intelligent, conscientious young man slip through their fingers and he would have been an asset to their company.

[san_d]

Seemingly, this is what they told the woman at the Work Programme but whether or not they would get involved in a discrimination case, I don't know

I wouldn't rely on the words of a WP agent, they don't seem to have much credibility. Why didn't they speak to your son directly?