Insulted at an Interview

Tony EH

Gerry T wrote: »

That's not how I see it. The interviewer is asking why the OP hasn't being offered a simular job before now. It doesn't say her current age is an issue. Let's suppose the OP had "made it" then that question wouldn't have come up. It's not about the OPs age, it's about the perceived lack of advancement.
This was a poorly phrased question, but it was an opportunity for the OP to explain, taking on a masters and expanding on that might have put her in a very strong position.

I'm going to reprint the OP's entire post again and highlight the relevant parts for you.

It's CLEARLY about their age.

insultedatinterview wrote: »

Hi All,

Just looking for a bit of advice.

I should probably let this go, however it really upset me and I am wondering what to do. Now I know by making a complaint it won't benefit me in anyway, but having been looking for work for a few months now with no luck, I have been astounded at the amount of smug, ignorant interviewers (usually high up managers).

An interview the other day was particularly bad. And I do not know if I should make a formal complaint or just grin and bare it and continue to let people speak to me in such a manner , as I need a job.

The interviewer asked me my age.

She then said " I am always concerned about people who are later in life and haven't had it happen for them yet"

I did not know what to say. I just finished a masters and I have a lot of work experience.

At the end of the interview she reiterated again her concern about my age..and asked me "why hasn't it happened for you yet?"

I didn't know what to say, and was left bumbling like a mortified idiot, and I am ashamed to say the comment really upset me, feeling depressed and embarrassed following the interview.

I would also like to say this is a large Multinational IT company.

Does anyone have experience of this in interviews? If so, how can you deal with it/ respond to offensive interviewers?

I am exhausted from dealing with these kinds of people at interviews.

Thanks for any advice.

If you cannot see the AGE related issues that the interviewer has here, it's because you don't want to.

Tony EH

Gerry T wrote: »

It's sort of implied by the question. That the OP has plenty of experience but hasn't advanced in her career. Leading us to assume the OP is looking for a step up.
The OP hasn't clarified nor has she said that's not the case, until she does we'll keep guessing.
If it were a simular job spec why would the interviewer ask that question.

It shouldn't lead us to assume anything of the sort. The OP hasn't explicitly said anything like that.

It could be a situation that the OP has "a lot of work experience" somewhat relative to the field they want to get involved in, but may not have worked in that actual job before. Therefore leading the interviewer to ask why "it hasn't happened" yet.

Interesting thread. OP - IMO it wasn't insulting, but it was just plain rude. And I really think that there's never any call not to demonstrate basic manners...

If a company doesn't train interviewers better or doesn't understand why treating potential employees with basic dignity is important then best steer well clear. There are better more effective ways to gauge how you react to pressure.

I recently worked for a very fast growing company where I interviewed a lot of potential new hires alongside a colleague who had a VERY abrasive interviewing style. He didn't really know better, but was under a lot of stress (due to being totally understaffed) and in fact was a much much nicer person and colleague than his interview manner might have suggested. But word spreads and in some industries good people will have multiple options and won't put up with being treated badly or rumours of aggressions and toxic behaviour. Even if your interviewee is unsuitable - no need to be demeaning or unkind. It rarely brings out the best.

Gerry T

The question wasn't about the OPs age, it was about the length of time she worked. There's no case for ageism. You can use the word age, the context is time served

Gerry T

Tony EH wrote:

It's CLEARLY about their age.

It's CLEARLY not about their age. It's all about the time working in the same role, read again.

Gerry T

Tony EH wrote:

It could be a situation that the OP has "a lot of work experience" somewhat relative to the field they want to get involved in, but may not have worked in that actual job before. Therefore leading the interviewer to ask why "it hasn't happened" yet.

Doing some assuming of your own there

Tony EH

You're just being silly now.

AndrewJRenko

Gerry T wrote: »

The question wasn't about the OPs age,

From the OP;

The interviewer asked me my age.

???

Gerry T

AndrewJRenko wrote:

From the OP;

On mobile so can't link all your post.
The part people are debating is where the interviewer said, I'm always surprised when someone later in life hasn't made it. I believe this is about the OPs lack of progress and not about her age.
As for asking someone's age, that's not very smart but it's not against any laws and nor does it open you for litigation. You have to demonstrate the interviewer was discriminating because of age. The second part of what the interviewer asked is clearly about the OPs lack of progress and not her age.

AndrewJRenko

Gerry T wrote: »

As for asking someone's age, that's not very smart but it's not against any laws and nor does it open you for litigation.

It literally does open you up for litigation. If you don't ask about age, it is extremely difficult to prove discrimination on age grounds. If you do ask, you are literally opening the door for litigation.

Gerry T

Look, i agree, very stupid of the interviewer to ask the OPs age.
To the first post I feel the OP shouldn't be embarassed, if the question had been correctly phrased, such as "you have alot of experience working as ??? Why is it you haven't looked for a role simular to the one your looking for today" it's basically the same question, so answer the question as best you can, don't get put off stride and let the interview crumble.
To those saying you'd give the interviewer a piece of your mind, that's just childish. In work you'll find bosses, colleagues, customers, suppliers and staff that will talk to you in simular condescending brash manner. My advise would be to develop communication skills to deal with this without upsetting yourself.

givyjoe

Gerry T wrote: »

Intent is important, yes it was a poorly phrased question but the way I read it the interviewer is trying to find out why the OP has stayed at a bottom rung. The fact the OP got an interview would indicate her age isn't a factor otherwise she wouldn't have got an interview.
To me it's a question asking the OP to explain why she hadn't taken a step up before now, was a position ever offered. I don't expect applicants to be perfect, nor are interviewers.

The person interviewing is not necessarily the one who shortlisted the candidatefor interview. You're making the assumption in this case that they are the same person.

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

On mobile so can't link all your post.
The part people are debating is where the interviewer said, I'm always surprised when someone later in life hasn't made it. I believe this is about the OPs lack of progress and not about her age.
As for asking someone's age, that's not very smart but it's not against any laws and nor does it open you for litigation. You have to demonstrate the interviewer was discriminating because of age. The second part of what the interviewer asked is clearly about the OPs lack of progress and not her age.

Saying later in life is about age, not about experience.

You are the only remaining person on this thread who thinks that asking about age doesnt open the door for litigation, despite evidence posted to the contrary that it does.

The question clearly shows the interviewer is thinking about age, and the interviewer's statements about "not making it" confirm it.

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

The question wasn't about the OPs age, it was about the length of time she worked. There's no case for ageism. You can use the word age, the context is time served

Since you work in the industry could you take a look at your company's rules on this? I would be surprised if they agreed with you.

Gerry T

server down wrote:

Since you work in the industry could you take a look at your company's rules on this? I would be surprised if they agreed with you.

I've said I wouldn't refer to age in an interview, it's threading on thin water, but I still believe the question asked was about why the OP hadn't progressed over the term of her career.

Gerry T

givyjoe wrote:

The person interviewing is not necessarily the one who shortlisted the candidatefor interview. You're making the assumption in this case that they are the same person.

That's true, but it doesn't change my view on the intent of the question.

Calina

Anyone who wants to ask about progression should be asking about progression. This interviewer asked what age the candidate is. This is unprofessional and highly risky in terms of opening the potential employer up to an age discrimination case.

There is no justification for framing a progress or lack of progress discussion in terms of age. Age doesn't even come into a progress question.

Unprofessional and incompetent is how I would describe the events described in the OP. It reflects badly on the employer tbf and asking what age is a very bad optic. Style of language is also unprofessional.

Gerry T

insultedatinterview wrote:

She then said " I am always concerned about people who are later in life and haven't had it happen for them yet"

This is about why has the OP not progressed

insultedatinterview wrote:

At the end of the interview she reiterated again her concern about my age..and asked me "why hasn't it happened for you yet?"

Neither of the two questions above IMHO demonstrates the interviewer is ruling out the OP because she's too old.

server down wrote:

The question clearly shows the interviewer is thinking about age, and the interviewer's statements about "not making it" confirm it.

Age yes but not in the context your implying that because of her age she won't get the job

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

This is about why has the OP not progressed

Hasnt progressed to what though? To "it"? What exactly is "it".

Neither of the two questions above IMHO demonstrates the interviewer is ruling out the OP because she's too old.

I think she has made that very clear. She is definitely ruling the candidate out.

Age yes but not in the context your implying that because of her age she won't get the job

I mean there is no way to read the statements in any other way than that.

givyjoe

Gerry T wrote: »

That's true, but it doesn't change my view on the intent of the question.

Your view on the the intent of the question isn't really relevant and you're completely missing the point I've been making.

Intent does not matter, at least or the initial stage at least and unless the company could categorically prove that they did not discriminate on the grounds of age, the OP would likely win their case.

Again, this win is assuming the OP could prove this was said.. e.g. the interviewer admits it.. there would be a prima facie case of discrimintation here, i.e. on the face of it, there appears to be sufficient grounds for the OP to claim that they MAY have been discriminated against.

The company in court, would have to prove that they did not discriminate, whether they intended to or otherwise. E.g. some fairly detailed notes on the questions asked, the answers from OP and a clear non discriminatory reason for not hiring the OP.

It really doesn't matter if they didn't intend to discriminate, if they can't prove that they DID NOT discriminate, they would likely lose.

If you and your company are not aware of the above, it's likely a matter of time before you end up in court.

Danzy

It was a badly phrased question, very dodgy HR grounds but it was an area that I could understand why an interviewer would want to explore.

It obviously is a sore point for the person, why else would they be thinking about it a few days later and say they were insulted at an interview, it is a pity that instead of that they didn't have an answer prepared for an obvious question.

They must have thought the interview was worth while because they would not have wasted time and money in having the person in otherwise.

The poster could think it was a badly put and off question but the reaction to it is of concern and suggests someone who is a bit anxious etc.

I say this as someone who has had my own troubles in the attic department and has sat in and interviewed many people.

server down

Danzy wrote: »

It was a badly phrased question, very dodgy HR grounds but it was an area that I could understand why an interviewer would want to explore.

It obviously is a sore point for the person, why else would they be thinking about it a few days later and say they were insulted at an interview, it is a pity that instead of that they didn't have an answer prepared for an obvious question.

They must have thought the interview was worth while because they would not have wasted time and money in having the person in otherwise.

The poster could think it was a badly put and off question but the reaction to it is of concern and suggests someone who is a bit anxious etc.

I say this as someone who has had my own troubles in the attic department and has sat in and interviewed many people.

why has your problems in the attic got much to do with anything.

The fact that a lot of people who are interviewers dont realise the problem here is problematic. It may be because Irish law doesnt award very much.

Danzy

Every interviewer would have had that same query going through their head, it will have been discussed in other ways, cleaner ways but a lot of people will not ask it for obvious reasons which does the candidate no favour. It is something they could have answered in an acceptable way.

It is very possible that the person who asked the question was the one picked the CV out for the interview, maybe others had decided that it was enough to rule them out for interview.

The person with the ****ty sounding question may have been the one batting hardest for her in the run up, that wouldn't surprise me, who knows.

What was given was an opportunity to answer a major concern for any interviewer, yeah he probably put it in an off way but it was an opportunity for the candidate to help themselves by clearing up a big question mark.

Instead, they presume they were insulted.

At one stage I would have taken that the way they have as well.

server down

Danzy wrote: »

Every interviewer would have had that same query going through their head, it will have been discussed in other ways, cleaner ways but a lot of people will not ask it for obvious reasons which does the candidate no favour. It is something they could have answered in an acceptable way.

It is very possible that the person who asked the question was the one picked the CV out for the interview, maybe others had decided that it was enough to rule them out for interview.

The person with the ****ty sounding question may have been the one batting hardest for her in the run up, that wouldn't surprise me, who knows.

What was given was an opportunity to answer a major concern for any interviewer, yeah he probably put it in an off way but it was an opportunity for the candidate to help themselves by clearing up a big question mark.

Instead, they presume they were insulted.

At one stage I would have taken that the way they have as well.

It reads like an insult to me.

This thread keeps going because people wont read it. It is not acceptable to ask questions about age in an interview. It can make you liable to a discrimination suit.

AndrewJRenko

Calina wrote: »

Anyone who wants to ask about progression should be asking about progression.

True, and if 'progression' is a requirement, it should have been clear on the job spec that they want people who have progressed or are capable of progressing in the future. Be clear about what you want, and you just might get it.

Danzy

server down wrote: »

It reads like an insult to me.

This thread keeps going because people wont read it. It is not acceptable to ask questions about age in an interview. It can make you liable to a discrimination suit.

No but everyone conducting the interview and in the Selection Process would have considered it.

Is that right, no but the difference may well be that this person was giving them a chance to explain why the 2 that kept quite had already drawn the line through the name and they may well be the most knowledgeable ones on HR policy and have lead programmes against ageism.

Gerry T

server down wrote:

This thread keeps going because people wont read it. It is not acceptable to ask questions about age in an interview. It can make you liable to a discrimination suit.

Inshore that you won't read replies that disagree with you
Everyone is saying the question was dodgy but still not necessarily discriminatory. What if the person that got the job was older and more experienced than the OP, claim out the window.
On the other hand if a company employed a younger applicant that was less experienced, educated, trained even when there's no questions obout age can be brought up on age discrimination charges. Mentioning age in its self doesn't guarantee it will.
Your starting to sound like an ambulance chaser, take the question for what it was. A query on lack of career progress that was very poorly phrased. No reason for the OP to be embarassed.

server down

Danzy wrote: »

No but everyone conducting the interview and in the Selection Process would have considered it.

Is that right, no but the difference may well be that this person was giving them a chance to explain why the 2 that kept quite had already drawn the line through the name and they may well be the most knowledgeable ones on HR policy and have lead programmes against ageism.

Thats stretching it. You are now assuming that you know both what the interviewer wanted to say but didnt ( i.e. ask a question about experience, not age) and what everybody else in the interview was thinking.

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

Inshore that you won't read replies that disagree with you
Everyone is saying the question was dodgy but still not necessarily discriminatory.

No you are pretty much the only person left saying that. And you are the one ignoring expert replies to you, like the ones from givyjoe. Who has legal expertise in this area. I just really know my company rules.

On the other hand if a company employed a younger applicant that was less experienced, educated, trained even when there's no questions obout age can be brought up on age discrimination charges. Mentioning age in its self doesn't guarantee it will.
Your starting to sound like an ambulance chaser, take the question for what it was. A query on lack of career progress that was very poorly phrased. No reason for the OP to be embarassed.

Try not to engage in ad homimens. I am not taking any case, so how can I be an ambulance chaser?

I merely post as someone who has had interview experience, and have completed courses on diversity etc. You probably need to look at your own company's rules.

Gerry T

server down wrote:

I merely post as someone who has had interview experience, and have completed courses on diversity etc. You probably need to look at your own company's rules.

You keep saying I need to check my company rules...news flash company rules don't matter, it's the legal aspect that matters.
I also keep saying I wouldn't phrase a question the way it was so you needn't keep suggesting I would.
When some one says how come you haven't made it by now is talking about the lack of progress. How can that be about the age of the OP, or an indication that they wouldn't get the job based on their age. For all we know the OP could be 30!