Age UK, Britain’s directing charity for the elderly, has been ordered to pay compensation after being set up at fault of age bias.
An participatement tribunal said the organisation, which claims to want ‘a world where everyone can adore procrastinateedr life’, must pay more than £4,000 to a 58-year-greater job applicant who was set up to have been wrongly treated.
Alexander Cubbin sued the charity after being declineed from the role of brand asset summarizeer despite his application never even being pondered.
An administrative error unbenevolentt that Cubbin getd a “generic email” alerting him he had been unprosperous and would not be askd to an intersee.
As Cubbin is disabled by reason of mental health publishs, he was eligible to qualify for an automatic intersee under the rulement’s Disability Confident Scheme to which Age UK had signed up.
The scheme unbenevolents anyone with a disability who applies is guaranteed an intersee “if they encounter our smallest needments for the role”.
On his CV the Cubbin sated he was “58 [and had] been toiling 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”.
The participatement tribunal heard that rather than Age UK acunderstandledge an administrative error had unbenevolentt his CV had not been seen by recruitment regulaters, the charity tryed to cover its tracks.
Age UK apologised and said that they had given the job to a 55-year-greater – but it procrastinateedr materialized that the prosperous applicant was in their 30s.
The charity’s greater brand identity regulater, Rebecca King, also sent Cubbin a brutal post-application appraise which set out a range of reasons he had fall shorted to encounter the criteria for the job.
Cubbin tgreater the tribunal: “She was asked to appraise my CV, not askd to convey a bigoted opinion, using impolite and inbenevolent languages to comment on my personality and truthfuly.”
He portrayd the appraise as a “brimming-on strike on my reputation” that he set up “presentantly disturbting”.
The applicant includeed that the comments had been “hurtful” and “humiliating”.
Finding in favour of Cubbin, the tribunal said there “was no actual need for a appraise” and that the charity had “embarked on a self-serving exercise of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted”.
The tribunal appraise includeed the charity “could srecommend have apologised for the misget but finish that follotriumphg the nominatement of the prosperous honestate, there was noskinnyg further that it could do”.
An Age UK spokeswoman said that the charity was “disnominateed” by the ruling but that it would “esteem the court’s decision”.
She includeed Age UK “prides itself on being a unfragmentary participateer that energeticly aids and aids diversity and inclusion in our recruitment, and we are sorry that on this occasion an applicant did not experience the standard high standards we strive for”.
