The case involved a company's advertisement in a local paper in which the accounting department was seeking student assistants. In the advertisement it was, among others, stated under the item "We expect" that the applicants have passed the upper secondary examination and would like to earn some money for a year or so before starting their further education.

The claimant in the case was of the opinion that the use of the specified criteria was merely a circumvention of an age criterion.

The Danish Board of Equal Treatment found that the criterion "student assistants", in combination with the expectation that the applicants had passed the upper secondary examination and would like to earn some money for a year or so before starting further education, created an assumption that the company expected the applicants to be young. In addition, the Board found that there was reason to believe that elder applicants' opportunities to be employed were reduced in this respect.

On this basis, the Board found that age discrimination was involved.

The decision shows that the use of age-neutral criteria may create an assumption of indirect discrimination if the criteria to a vast extent cater for a certain age group. The decision is consistent with the former practice of the Board where, for instance, "newly graduated" combined with "a few years' experience" and "newly graduated economist" combined with "relevant student job" in the board cases 376/2012 and 375/2012 implied the possibility of discrimination. The decision does not change the fact that in other circumstances it is possible to advertise for "student assistants" or the like, provided that the criterion is based on objective purposes, which may be the case if students are sought from one or several specific fields of study because they have relevant experience or if such students are sought because they are relevant for the company's future field of recruitment.

The case will now be sent back to the Supreme Court who will consider the specific case.