Female job applicant who was asked if she was married paid €7,500 in compensation

An ‘old school’ boss of an electrical firm who asked a female job applicant at interview was she married, did she have children and her age has been ordered to pay €7,500 compensation to the woman.

Adjudication Officer at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Anne McElduff has found that the questions asked by the 58 year old company owner at interview on October 26th 2018 were discriminatory.

Ms McElduff found that the question sought to elicit information from the job applicant about her civil and family status and age and therefore contravened the provisions of the Employment Equality Acts.

Ms McElduff found that the complainant “was put in an uncomfortable position as a result and that notwithstanding her upset by the questions, she felt obliged to answer”.

However in response to a separate discrimination claim by the job applicant, Ms McElduff found that she was not selected for the post by reason of the discrimination she experienced.

The complainant told the WRC that she was taken aback by these questions towards the end of the interview which she regarded as “totally unacceptable”.

The complainant submitted that she reluctantly answered these questions but felt very uncomfortable in doing so.

She stated that these questions had absolutely no bearing on her ability to do the job in question.

She also submitted that if she were in any other situation other than a job interview she would have refused point blank to answer.

The complainant had an extensive career history and in particular in administration. Arising from the closure of her previous work place she found herself out of work and secured an interview with the electrical firm for a part time administrative post.

The job applicant complained post interview to the recruitment agency and the agency emailed to state that “they are inappropriate questions” and the firm owner has not asked them with other candidates previously.

The recruitment agency representative added: "I apologise if he made you feel uncomfortable in any way. He is old school in his approach”.

In response to the job applicant’s discrimination claim, the Tipperary born electrical firm boss stated that at the end of the interview “we chatted about different things including hobbies & interests”.

He stated that if the complainant “feels I asked inappropriate questions I do apologise as this was not my intention and it had no bearing on her interview or the fact that she was unsuccessful in getting the position”.

He added: “My intention was never to make the complainant feel uncomfortable in fact it was the complete opposite”.

The electrical firm owner recalled after interview, he enquired about the applicant’s age, “but immediately I insisted she didn’t answer that as “I shouldn’t ask a woman her age”.”

He added: “I went on to tell that I was 58 yrs of age…So the age question was in that context and not part of the interview.”

The firm owner stated that he was “shocked” to receive a formal complaint over the interview.

The firm owner felt that the marital question was “harmless” and that it didn’t have any bearing on the interview and the question about children “was part of a harmless exchange” where he stated that he had one daughter.

The boss stated that he accepted the three questions would be inappropriate if asked at the interview but that the interview was over when these exchanges took place.

The boss apologised if he upset the complainant, that was not his intention, that he wished the interview to be conducted as a normal conversation and to make the candidate comfortable.

The company owner stated that he had conducted many interviews and had never had a previous complaint to a tribunal.

There were 47 applicants for the post and the complainant got down to the final two.

On whether the questions were asked at interview or not, Ms McElduff stated that the proximity of time between the formal interview and any general chat afterwards, renders it highly unlikely and improbable that a distinction could have been made between both situations.