> older candidates would not have even been allowed to know about the job To be more precise, they would not have seen the job on Facebook. That's not the same

> older candidates would not have even been allowed to know about the job To be more precise, they would not have seen the job on Facebook. That's not the same as not being allowed to know about the job, and the difference matters. The question is not whether they were included by a particular venue, medium, or method. If it were, every engagement with a headhunter would be discriminating against anyone not part of their clientele. The real question is whether equal efforts were being made to reach people of different age groups across all available means. Do we know whether that's the case? > I sincerely view the overwhelming shift to open-plan offices as partly motivated by widespread ageism I agree that there might be an element of ageism in that choice. Any physiologist can tell you that the kinds of distraction and discomfort inherent in such an environment will affect older people more than younger ones. For the same reason, I think certain interview techniques are inherently ageist, as is a more-than-usual antipathy toward letting people work from home. I'm fortunate that I've been able to overcome these obstacles, but the very fact that they are obstacles is problematic IMO. > a lot of HR processes that are supposed to be fair "because they apply to everyone" are actually just engineered That's true of a lot more than HR processes, though I would caution you not to assume malice where incompetence (ignorance, insufficient diligence) would be sufficient. That said, disparate impact and disparate treatment are two different standards. Perhaps the law should address disparate impact. Or perhaps that would create its own ills. In any case, it doesn't. Uniform application of a standard or process still seems like a strong defense against charges of disparate treatment, even if those standards or processes create disparate outcomes.