The requirement for recent "hands on" experience was not age discriminatory.
A 50 year old man applied for a human resources job, but was not shortlisted and was told that he was “over qualified”. He brought claims for both direct and indirect age discrimination, alleging that he did not get the job because of his age and that the CRE’s requirement for recent “hands on” experience was a policy which indirectly discriminated against older people.
The Tribunal found against Mr Rains as the CRE had several non-discriminatory reasons for not recruiting him. The Tribunal also found that the CRE’s requirement for recent “hands on” experience was not discriminatory and noted a candidate of a similar age to Mr Rains was shortlisted for the post.
Rains -v- Commission for Racial Equality ET/2306496/06