Job advert was at best unfortunate and at worst inept

In Montgomery v Sellar Property Group, an employment tribunal found that, despite the wording of the advertisement for a “dynamic young accountant”, age had not played any part in the short listing process for the post. However, the way the job was advertised was “at best unfortunate and at worst inept.

SPG placed an advertisement for a qualified accountant stating: “An opportunity for a dynamic young accountant to grow with a rapidly expanding group with a high public profile.” 53 year old Mr Montgomery applied but was not shortlisted and he submitted a claim of direct and indirect age discrimination.

SPG agued that the words “dynamic young accountant” had simply been copied by a line manager from an advert placed a few years ago. In any event, Mr Montgomery had not been shortlisted due to his employment history, not his age, a 58-year-old candidate had in fact been shortlisted, but the post was never filled due to financial upheaval. SPG’s evidence also showed that potential applicants in their 40s, 50s and 60s were not discouraged from applying.

The tribunal found it extraordinary that the word “young” came to be used in the advert. However, although the advert was “indicative of discrimination” it did not itself amount to discrimination and despite the wording, age did not play a part in the short listing process. With regard to indirect discrimination, the tribunal found there was no provision, criterion or practice  as the requirement to be “young” was not used in the short listing process.

The tribunal warned that while the claimant was unsuccessful, such an advert was completely inappropriate SPG should not be surprised that it found itself the subject of an age discrimination claim. The tribunal was particularly critical  that SPG did not have equality policies in place and warned SPG that if it did not change its approach and educate its managers, it would only be matter of time before the company found itself before a tribunal again.