Age UK guilty of discrimination over 58-year-old job applicant

One of Britain’s best known charities for older people has been found guilty of age discrimination and ordered to pay more than £4,000 in compensation.
A judge has ruled that Age UK — which campaigns for “a world where everyone can love later life” — harassed a 58-year-old job applicant and treated him unfairly.
Alexander Cubbin sued Age UK after he discovered that owing to an administrative internal blunder his application was never considered before it was rejected.
The designer then alleged that the charity subjected him to a “humiliating” review to avoid “embarrassment”.
An employment tribunal in central London was told that last year Cubbin was one of 298 applicants for a brand asset designer role.
Cubbin is disabled by reason of mental health issues, and was therefore eligible for an automatic interview as Age UK has signed the government’s “disability confident scheme”.
Official policy at the organisation — which describes itself as the country’s “leading charity for older people” — states that it guarantees an interview “for any applicant who declares that they have a disability if they meet our minimum requirements for the role”.
Cubbin stated in the CV that he submitted to Age UK that he was disabled, and added that he was “58 [and had] been working in the industry for 40 years and in a voluntary capacity for the past 14 years and I’m not quite ready to put my slippers on”.
In response, Cubbin received a “generic email” that said his application had failed and was not invited for an interview.
Cubbin then contacted Age UK to complain that under the terms of the disability policy, he should have been interviewed.
At that point, it emerged charity officials had committed an “embarrassing” blunder and that Cubbin’s CV had not even been seen by recruitment managers.
The charity apologised to Cubbin and told him the person who got the job was 55, but in fact it later emerged that the successful candidate was in their thirties.
According to the tribunal’s report, Rebecca King, the charity’s brand identity manager, then sent Cubbin a post-application review that detailed the reasons that he failed to meet the criteria for the job.
In that review, King criticised Cubbin for having a “limited” portfolio, lacking software skills — and she also cast doubt over his ability as a team player and criticised his qualifications.
“There was no actual need for a review,” said the tribunal, noting that Age UK “could simply have apologised for the mistake but conclude that following the appointment of the successful candidate, there was nothing further that it could do”.
But instead, the charity “embarked on a self-serving exercise of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted”.
The tribunal said that King conducted the review while being “well aware” that concluding that Cubbin met the minimum criteria for the role “would have been embarrassing and awkward”.
She would also have been aware, said the tribunal, that the embarrassment could “very conveniently be avoided if the review concluded that he would not have met the essential criteria for the role”.
At the hearing, Cubbin described King’s comments as “disrespectful”, “hurtful”, and “humiliating” all of which was exacerbated by the fact that she had disseminated the review to others.
Cubbin added that the review was “a full-on attack on my reputation” that he found “deeply upsetting”.
Jonathan Gidney, the tribunal judge, backed Cubbin’s claim and ordered the charity to pay £4,316 in compensation.
An Age UK spokeswoman said that the charity was “disappointed that this claim was upheld, but we fully respect the court’s decision”.
She added that Age UK “prides itself on being a fair employer that actively supports and encourages diversity and inclusion in our recruitment, and we are sorry that on this occasion an applicant did not experience the normal high standards we strive for”.