Can You Be Refused Work If You Can't Relocate

I am me

Ok, so suppose you went to an interview, and the prospective employer was very impressed with you. However, when he asked you to relocate nearer to the job you explained that there were very good (family) reasons why you couldn't. And where you actually lived didn't make it particularly difficult to do the job (it was within commuter distance, we're talking for example, living in Killarney and the job being in Cork, not living in Letterkenny and the job being in Waterford).

Later, s/he told you that s/he had been extremely impressed with you, but had chosen someone else because you lived what s/he deemed to be too far away from the job.

Is that fair reason to not give you the position or is it discrimination?

Farcear

Employers should avoid questions like "can you relocate?" as this could constitute discrimination on the grounds of family status or marital status.

The distance is irrelevant. If I'm able to travel from north Donegal every day, that's up to me -- provided I'm able to work 9-5 or whatever the hours are.

I am me

Farcear wrote: »

Employers should avoid questions like "can you relocate?" as this could constitute discrimination on the grounds of family status or marital status.

The distance is irrelevant. If I'm able to travel from north Donegal every day, that's up to me -- provided I'm able to work 9-5 or whatever the hours are.

My question was on that basis. I know someone who this very thing happened to, and they explained they had bought a house where they live with their wife and young child which is why they couldn't relocate. And then in the post-interview feedback not wanting to relocate was given as the very reason the person was refused the position.

Procrastastudy

Ah post interview feedback - code for "We just love being sued!"

christmas2012

no its a fair enough judgement being honest

Victor

If the job was snow plough driver in Cork, then I think it would be reasonable, as getting to work on snowy mornings would be difficult.

Similarly, some other jobs are of a on-site residential nature - level crossing keeper, household staff, caretaker, etc.

Is there a good reason for you to live near your workplace?

I am me

Victor wrote: »

If the job was snow plough driver in Cork, then I think it would be reasonable, as getting to work on snowy mornings would be difficult.

Similarly, some other jobs are of a on-site residential nature - level crossing keeper, household staff, caretaker, etc.

Is there a good reason for you to live near your workplace?

No, you could easily do it by commuting.

For example, those you mentioned, snow plough driver, level crossing keeper, if the person lived far away then its feasible there could be an emergency caused if the person was delayed getting to work. That wouldn't be the situation with this job.

seamus

It's a tough one really. The employer is basically permitted to refuse to employ you for any reason except the nine discriminatory reasons.

Place of residence is not one of those reasons, so bizarre as it sounds, an employer would be entitled to refuse a job to someone because they live in a different county than the one where the job is located.

Making a claim for discrimination due to family status or marital status would be tenuous at best because you would need to show that was the reason why you were turned down. It wasn't.
The employer would be able to show that you would have been employed if your location was changed, therefore your marital status or family status was not a factor. In fact, they may have hired someone who's married with kids, which would blow any claims of discrimination out of the water.

"Family status" simply refers to whether someone has children or not. It's not a reference to the circumstances of your family - i.e. "We can't move because the kids are in school here".

You weren't refused the job on the basis that you have children, you were refused on the basis that you couldn't relocate closer. The reasons for your inability to relocate are none of the employer's concern.

It could be a lucky escape. They may prefer a closer located candidate because these people can be called out of hours to arrive in at a moment's notice, or they can be asked to stay back late on the basis that they don't have far to go home.
It may also be the case that the employer's experience of long commuters is that they are more frequently absent or late than those with a shorter commute.

I am me

seamus wrote: »

It's a tough one really. The employer is basically permitted to refuse to employ you for any reason except the nine discriminatory reasons.

Place of residence is not one of those reasons, so bizarre as it sounds, an employer would be entitled to refuse a job to someone because they live in a different county than the one where the job is located.

Making a claim for discrimination due to family status or marital status would be tenuous at best because you would need to show that was the reason why you were turned down. It wasn't.
The employer would be able to show that you would have been employed if your location was changed, therefore your marital status or family status was not a factor. In fact, they may have hired someone who's married with kids, which would blow any claims of discrimination out of the water.

"Family status" simply refers to whether someone has children or not. It's not a reference to the circumstances of your family - i.e. "We can't move because the kids are in school here".

You weren't refused the job on the basis that you have children, you were refused on the basis that you couldn't relocate closer. The reasons for your inability to relocate are none of the employer's concern.

It could be a lucky escape. They may prefer a closer located candidate because these people can be called out of hours to arrive in at a moment's notice, or they can be asked to stay back late on the basis that they don't have far to go home.
It may also be the case that the employer's experience of long commuters is that they are more frequently absent or late than those with a shorter commute.

Ok, so basically, even though it appears unfair, I should tell my friend that its best to just leave it go.

seamus

Just because something is unfair, doesn't mean it's wrong or illegal.

At most it might be worth making a call to NERA to see what they say. I'm not a solicitor, maybe I'm wrong.

But from the look of it, unless he's fairly sure that he was refused the job on one of the nine illegal grounds, then he's wasting his time chasing an employer who never had any obligation to him.

I am me

seamus wrote: »

Just because something is unfair, doesn't mean it's wrong or illegal.

May mean it should be, but the law is generally set up to protect employers and if that's the way it is there's not much point my friend bleating about it. Thanks anyway.

Procrastastudy

To be fair I think Irish law has the employee / employer rights fairly well balanced. I'm always shocked at what goes on in the States. I don't agree with - "you've no right to your job" mentality once you're in the door but employers should be allowed a wide freedom in choosing who is the right fit for their business.

I'd give this particular employer some marks simply for being open and honest about why they have refused - 90% won't give any reason lest someone gets the hump unreasonably costs them time and money defending a discrimination claim.

Thats not to say some employers don't, rightly, get a deserved slap - we've all heard about some very daft questions asked in interviews.

mitosis

All things otherwise being equal, what reason would the OP give for the person living close by not getting the job? Sometimes the decisions are made in the small details. A prospective employer owes his first duty to himself and to what will best suit his business. In this case someone close by is the best candidate.

So, I'd say no valid cause for grievance.

RangeR

I am me wrote: »

but the law is generally set up to protect employers

Most employers would say the opposite.

It's quite subjective.

Glinda

In terms of the nine grounds, if the effect of the type of distinction being made is to discriminate between applicants on one of the nine grounds, then it doesn't matter whether that is the employer's intention or not.

What is important is whether the grounds used actually discriminates against people in one of the categories listed.

For example, in your friend's case, if he/she can demonstrate that all married people/people with kids are effectively one one side of a line drawn by the employer between those who are willing to relocate and those who are not, then the effect of this is to discriminate against those people on a prohibited ground (since ability to relocate segregates with marital status or whatever).

It is a bit like saying that you are not racist, you just don't employ people with brown eyes, or that you are not sexist, but that you won't employ people whose waist to hip ratio is a certain way. Eye colour and hip size are not prohibited grounds for discrimination, but you can't use them as a measure of suitability if the effect of doing this it that everyone ends up in successful/unsuccessful categories according to one of the prohibited grounds.