Global search firm Spencer Stuart has repudiated a finding made by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that it discriminated against older job candidates. The EEOC investigation, prompted by a charge brought by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), found that Spencer Stuart had, on request, supplied clients with a list of candidates within a certain age range, contrary to the US Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The decision was based on a 1995 memo sent by the then CFO of Spencer Stuart. The memo, which was leaked to the AARP by two ex-employees of the firm, read in part: ‘[I]n order to protect our clients we should not include age… in candidate reports. The best approach is to provide this information verbally so that [clients’] permanent records do not contain [it].’

The EEOC determination triggers a conciliation period, at the end of which, if Spencer Stuart has not reached a settlement voluntarily, the EEOC may decide to proceed with litigation.

According to Adam Klein, partner at the AARP’s lawyers, Outten & Golden LLP, this is a landmark case, being the first of its kind to involve such a high-level recruitment firm. ‘There’s quite substantial evidence of discrimination,’ Klein said. ‘The US government is accusing Spencer Stuart of violating a core civil rights statute – these are serious allegations.’

Curly Moloney, MD of UK headhunter Moloney Search, conceded that such practices are common in the search industry: ‘The professional way is to ask the candidates for their own CVs, and if they want to provide a date of birth, they can. If a client asked us to reveal the ages of candidates, we wouldn’t - but a lot of firms would,’ she said.

A terse statement issued by Spencer Stuart said simply: ‘Spencer Stuart has never discriminated against any individual for reasons of age - or any other reason - and any claim or suggestion to the contrary is unjustified and wholly without merit.’ The company’s US and UK offices both refused to make any further comment.