Equality and Human Rights Commission

An employer must avoid direct discrimination against job applicants because of a protected characteristic in what they say or write about the job.

For example:

An employer tells a female applicant on the phone that they are unsuitable for a driving job because the job has always been done by a man before and that is what they are looking for this time.

Direct discrimination cannot be objectively justified for any protected characteristic except age. But this does not mean that equality law generally allows age discrimination or stereotyping.

For example:

An employer says in a person specification that the successful applicant ‘must have youthful enthusiasm’. This would probably be direct discrimination because of age which the employer could not show to be objectively justified. What is actually needed is enthusiasm, which can be just as present in someone who the employer does not see as young, so the employer should not include the stereotype in the person specification.

Of course, an employer will need the successful applicant to have particular skills, qualities, experience and, sometimes, qualifications to do the job.

If requirements like these are objectively justified, an employer can include them in what they say or write about the job and the person they are looking for, even if they exclude some people (for example, because people with a particular protected characteristic are less likely to be able to meet the requirements).

But if the requirements are not objectively justified to do the job, then using them might be unlawful indirect discrimination.

For example:

An employer specifies that a job must be done on a full-time basis without having looked at whether it might be suitable for part-time work or jobsharing. The requirement to work full-time would put women at a disadvantage compared to men because more women work flexibly because of childcare responsibilities. Unless the employer can objectively justify the requirement to work full-time, this is likely to be indirect discrimination because of sex.

Any requirements that an employer gives you about what the job involves or about the person who they want to recruit should be related to and needed as part of the job. The inclusion of unnecessary or minor requirements could discriminate against you as a disabled person, for example, by stopping you applying.

For example:

An employer states that they want to recruit someone who is be ‘active and energetic’ but in fact the job needs someone to work at a desk. This might stop some disabled people from applying if, for example, they have a mobility impairment (although, of course, many people with a mobility impairment are very active and energetic). This would be the wrong approach for an employer to take.

An employer should also think about whether specific qualifications are actually required or whether what is really needed is a particular skill level or task.

For example:

An employer specifies that a driving licence is required for a job which involves limited travel. An applicant for the job has no driving licence because of the effects of cerebral palsy. They are otherwise the best applicant for that job, they could easily and cheaply do the travelling involved other than by driving and it is likely to be a reasonable adjustment for the employer to let them do so. It would probably be discriminatory to insist on the specification and reject their application only because they have no driving licence.

An employer must make reasonable adjustments for you during the recruitment process if you need them because you are a disabled person. This includes providing and accepting information in alternative formats, where this would be a reasonable adjustment.