Darya Ilina is now 24. Six years earlier she moved to Moscow and entered the restaurant industry. She became a manager at 21, then soon decided to switch paths. In interviews for manager or assistant manager roles at various cafes, her age and appearance were frequently highlighted as concerns.
“Almost every time I heard: ‘You’re so young, how will you lead a team if some teammates are older than you? You also look so sweet and kind—you won’t be taken seriously,’” Darya recalled.
She also noticed a pattern in the responses from HR professionals. While her professional merits were acknowledged, interviewers argued she lacked the “life experience” needed for the job. When asked what age brings this experience or what was missing, HR managers could not provide a clear answer.
There were also remarks with sexist undertones: “You’re a good girl, do you think you have enough sternness and direction for management roles?”
To try to counter these impressions, Darya clearly filled out the application, included a photo, and answered professional questions. Yet conversations with HR managers still surprised her.
You Are 56 Years Old, Would You Accept Such Conditions?
Similar experiences surfaced for Vera Petrova, a resident of Saratov. She pursued education early, learned English from scratch, and spent years teaching. Her professional life in pedagogy evolved when she was 46: she began at a children’s club to study foreign languages, later working with private clients as a tutor and governess.
Even after leaving a position, Vera maintained good relations with employers. At a subsequent interview, the recruitment agency director asked unusual questions.
“The interviewer told me, ‘You have solid experience with children and language skills, but you are 56 years old. Will you tolerate the conditions here?’ It felt odd—if I were really unable to handle the job, I wouldn’t have shown up for the interview,” Vera shared.
After a few minutes of awkward exchanges, the agency representative admitted the underlying motive: they preferred someone younger to fill the family’s nanny position.
We Talk About Everything Except Work
In another case, 39-year-old Arkady Azarov from St. Petersburg sought a role in a state enterprise focused on regional transport. He had previously worked in television and applied for a position in the complaints and suggestions department.
On the interview day, job suitability questions were scarce. Arkady was asked about his latest read, reasons for changing career paths, and when he could start. The HR conversation veered far from the job description, focusing instead on personal topics. He was told to wait for an invitation, and the discussion strongly suggested that his high qualifications might lead to boredom in the role. Similar remarks appeared in subsequent interviews when Arkady pursued other openings.
HR Lectures on How a Girl Should Look
At 33, Anastasia Nikaeva, a linguist-translator by training, faced repeated refusals tied to her appearance. Dreadlocks, worn for over a decade, became the main reason many employers rejected her.
“I started addressing it early, even over the phone, to avoid wasting time for myself and the interviewer. Many immediately turned down the candidacy. One department head said, ‘Promise to remove the dreadlocks and come back Monday.’ Another time, HR staff gave a lecture on how a girl should look,” Anastasia recalled.
Despite these experiences, she refused to compromise her style and values. When applying for a role at the Sochi Olympics, Anastasia completed all interview stages, and only in the final round was her appearance deemed noncompliant with requirements.
Later, after earning a football coach license, she moved into sports, where gender bias persisted: “football is not for girls” was a frequent refrain. Male candidates with similar credentials were often preferred.
Applicant Rights
In Russia, guarantees for signing an employment contract are governed by Article 64 of the Labor Code. Experts stress that conditions must be observed even during negotiations, and that many refusals occur for reasons not tied to professional qualifications.
There are standards outlining the criteria for applicants, and employers must provide explanations for refusals linked to qualifications or experience. In some cases, a proposed position may be withdrawn if it becomes clear that the candidate cannot perform certain tasks due to missing documents or required training.
Experts note that, in all other instances, a hiring refusal may constitute a legal violation. A common pattern involves non-compliance with professional requirements, or failures to consider valid alternate qualifications.
Lawyers warn that some applicants cannot be refused on protected grounds, such as pregnancy, disability, or certain family situations. Disallowing discrimination based on gender, nationality, or religious beliefs is also emphasized.
Claims and Court
Experts advise that if an applicant believes an HR manager or potential supervisor placed inappropriate questions or statements, they should understand the relevant legal provisions. Knowledge of the law helps individuals respond effectively and defend their rights during interviews.
If a candidate doubts the legality of the employer’s actions, they may pursue a pre-trial dispute, often by filing a complaint with the labor inspectorate. The process usually requires a written claim stating the reasons for dissatisfaction. The employer is expected to respond within seven days. If no response is received, court action can be pursued to compel disclosure of documents. While not always required, a formal written challenge is a common step in these cases.
Ultimately, Article 64 of the Labor Code serves as a key reference for reviewing an employer’s answer. When suspicious gaps are found, there is a path to a remedy. If the claim succeeds, the employer may be required to hire the candidate.