Originally Posted by
pilotmunk
You are saying it's not. Why not? You guys keep bringing emotions in to it. It's not about that.
A. Burden of proof requirement is not an argument pro or against. It's merely a statement that one would need to prove the claim. Sure, absolutely. But at any rate, let's say it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. For the sake of the argument.
Let's say the sun is triangular and green. For the sake of the argument.
That's the whole point - Can prove age discrimination? Go ahead and sue for age discrimination.
Can't? Don't. "That person got the interview because of age/sex/ethnicity/whatever" "No, that person's background is a better fit for what we are looking for".
Originally Posted by
pilotmunk
B. Fair point except I deliberately excluded from my hypothetical example any other factors as they are unknown and therefore subjective. But to make it clearer, let's say the sum of all unknown factors/points in each individual's application is equal.
So same question. Let's even go further in order to isolate ourselves from any prejudice of our knowledge of how the airline recruitment process works. Let's consider two applicants in some OTHER industry. Same known facts: one younger but less experienced, the other older but more experienced. Both have been pursuing this opportunity for equal amount of time, updating applications with equal frequency. All unknown factors cancel each other out. The younger applicant got an interview, the older applicant did not. (Hired or not is irrelevant). Ageism or not?
Exercise in futility.
Not ageism. One candidate spent enough time in the field to gain the basic experience, but probably not enough time to become engrained in doing things a certain way, so is probably more trainable and as such more desirable as a potential candidate. Boom.