It is now prohibited for employers to request information on age in recruitment processes

All types of recruitment processes must therefore be arranged before this date so that no information on age is requested.

The change in the law is a consequence of a three-party agreement on labour shortages on 6 October 2021 between the government the social partners, and KL, in which a later change in the law was specifically planned to prevent companies in the recruitment process from opting out of vacant seniors due to age. You can read the three-party agreement here.

Illegal discrimination

Today, there are no rules in the Discrimination law that prohibit an employer from requesting an applicant’s age in a job application or through electronic recruitment systems, etc.

Consequently, there are no rules that prohibit applicants will be disqualified due to age.

The law changes

The change in the Discrimination law must ensure that it will no longer be possible to identify the age of applicants in connection with recruitment. In this way, applicants are not excluded from that criterion alone.

The new provision in the Discrimination law prohibiting requests of information on age will enter on 1 July 2022.

Companies, recruitment agencies and platforms that are used for recruitment, etc., therefore have until this date to change the processes so that it is ensured that it is not a condition that the applicant discloses age.

However, it will still be possible to make a point of age if it has a business purpose. It can e.g., be in the employment of young workers and favourable special treatment of older applicants to promote their employment opportunities, e.g., in the form of senior days or in other cases where the general provisions of the Discrimination law have dispensed in favour of a special group or the like.

In addition, it is not illegal to receive information about an applicant’s age if he or she inadvertently provides information about this, for example, a CV, just as there are no restrictions on requesting information about experience in the form of previous employment, etc.

Comment

The change is of course a good way to get information removed in the initial part of the recruitment process. Whether the change will make it easier for the group of unemployed who are called seniors to get back to work, however, is doubtful.

Most employers already look at qualifications alone when filling a vacancy. With its wording and scope, there is also a recognition in the change in the law that it is impossible to eliminate conscious or unconscious discrimination due to age in employment.

Often the applicant’s CV will contain strong indications of age, just as it becomes apparent in a possible interview, what age category the applicant belongs to. Therefore, only automatic sorting is avoided.

The trend is unique in Denmark – When employees assess qualifications about who is best suited for a vacancy, an overall assessment is made based on several factors that are relevant to the individual company.

In that process, it is only natural to include whether the applicant will fit in professionally and as a person in the workplace.

It has nothing to do with age, but on the contrary, it is an assurance that the companies will make an overall assessment to ensure that hiring a new employee is also an investment that is sustainable in the long run.

The new provisions in the Discrimination law do not prevent companies from continuing their work for diverse employee groups that best reflect the company’s culture and operational area.

It will always be the responsible recruitment department that makes this assessment. The very few cases of age discrimination in the recruitment process that we have in Denmark show that work is done daily to find only the best qualified and not to sort out specific groups.

If you have questions regarding the new rules or about the organisation of recruitment processes and the legal framework hereto, please do not hesitate to contact Lund Elmer Sandager’s employment law specialists Partner, Attorney Michael Møller Nielsen, Attorney Julie Flindt Rasmussen and Attorney David Bar-Shalom.