PA sacked for being too short and too young

[Sunflower]

Did anyone see this? It happened in Australia. Unbelievable!!!


A Melbourne real estate agent will pay $1200 in compensation to a former female employee sacked for looking too young.

The Fair Work Ombudsman found Buxton's Sandringham branch discriminated against the woman, who was 23 when she was employed casually as a personal assistant in June 2010.

She was dismissed a month later, shortly after helping out at an auction by recording bids.

She was told by a male sales consultant some of the company's directors were concerned she looked too young, was too short, and wouldn't have the presence to negotiate effectively at auctions.

The consultant told her he needed someone he could turn into a sales person and this was not possible for her because of her "overall young look".

The woman lodged a complaint with the Fair Work Ombudsman.

As part of an enforceable undertaking, Buxton agreed to apologise to the woman, pay her compensation for the six weeks after her dismissal in which she was unable to get another job, and revamp its workplace policies.

It also agreed to develop new recruitment and termination policies, put in place workplace relations training for its directors and alert other Buxton franchisees of its breach.

Fair Work Ombudsman Nicholas Wilson said it was important for employees to treat their employees fairly and be aware of their obligations under workplace laws.

[gee4]

As someone who has temped in the past or who was "employed casually", this does not surprise me.  Employers will get away with what they can when hiring temp or casual staff and worry about it later.

As I posted in a recent thread, men can sometimes feel intimidated by women, especially women who are very capable of doing their job, whatever they look like.

It's clear this company put no real thought into who they hired for this role as their bungling ways cost them in the end.

[msmarieh]

The only thing that surprises me about this (sadly) is that the man was stupid enough to tell her the reason. So pathetic that this kind of behavior continues to occur.

[gee4]

Maybe employers should look at the men they hire Marie!

[msmarieh]

I quite agree.

What it really comes down to is tolerance of behavior that should not be tolerated. Too many companies have a do as I say, not as I do attitude.

[gee4]

My question is, if "some of the company's directors were concerned she looked too young, was too short, and wouldn't have the presence to negotiate effectively at auctions", then who the heck hired her in the first place?

[raindance]

Quite disgraceful, in my opinion.  There is always going to be an element of "Can we live with this person up to 40 hours a week", but competence, and not looks or age, should govern the employment of someone.  I'm glad this person has received some justice.

That aside, she is fortunate that she does have youthful looks, though.  I have a colleague who, despite being very nearly forty, has a fine, porcelain-like skin, and looks as though she is in her early 20s. 

[Katie G]

My question is, if "some of the company's directors were concerned she looked too young, was too short, and wouldn't have the presence to negotiate effectively at auctions", then who the heck hired her in the first place?

This is the crux of the issue.  A company can certainly decide to not hire a person because he or she lacks the right "presence" for a job, or rather, to choose another candidate because they DO have that presence.  But to FIRE someone after they're hired because all of a sudden you don't like their looks or their voice or their height (none of which can be changed) is wrong.

[peaches2160]

At will.  A person can be let go for no good reason, or because they don't like the color of their tie.  No loyalty to employees anymore.  Sad.