header-logo header-logo

Discrimination by Generation Y

04 September 2014
Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Generation Y employees (those under 35 years old) are the age group most likely to discriminate against older employees and those who work flexibly, a report has revealed.

They are also the group most likely to feel they have suffered sex discrimination. However, their support for employment rights does not always extend to those with young families, employees in their 60s or flexible workers, according to a study of 1,000 workers by employment law solicitors Doyle Clayton

The report, Age Before Beauty?, conducted by Censuswide Research,  notes that the negative and discriminatory attitude of many Generation Y employees is particularly important as they form a large element of the workforce and are often frontline managers involved in appraising, monitoring and recruiting staff.

Tina Wisener, partner at Doyle Clayton, says: “It is surprising that Generation Y has the most negative attitude towards flexible working and are most likely to see older colleagues and those who work from home or part-time as less committed to their jobs. 

“Generation Y are characterised as needing to be treated with kid gloves, on the other hand they are the very people whose attitudes make them likely to object to, and perhaps even thwart, initiatives to include working mums and older workers—the people who most appreciate being able to work flexibly. People in their 50s and 60s applying for a job have a lower chance of a fair hearing when interviewed or appraised by Generation Y.”

Wisener advises businesses to ensure appropriate training and coaching for managers, and to provide support to them to ensure part-time and home-workers are included as much as possible and not excluded from training and team activities.

She suggests businesses monitor the workforce to make sure part-time and home workers are not systematically being excluded from training and promotions.

 

Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Firm bolsters restructuring and insolvency team with partner hire

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Firm appoints first chief client officer

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

IP firm welcomes experienced patent litigator as partner

NEWS
Solicitors are installing panic buttons and thumb print scanners due to ‘systemic and rising’ intimidation including death and arson threats from clients
Ministers’ decision to scrap plans for their Labour manifesto pledge of day one protection from unfair dismissal was entirely predictable, employment lawyers have said
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll