'I've had to Botox my CV': Are AI recruitment tools affecting women's careers?

## "I've Had to Botox My CV": Are AI Recruitment Tools Harming Women's Careers?

Stacey Duguid, 52, believes that AI-driven recruitment platforms are creating disadvantages for women in mid-life. While millions of workers fear being made redundant due to AI advancements, a specific concern is emerging: are these tools posing a unique threat to women re-entering the workforce?

After a decades-long career, including senior corporate roles in fashion and a period of freelancing, Duguid sought "one last job." Over 16 months, she submitted "gazillions" of CVs, receiving only a handful of automated responses – a stark contrast to her past ease in finding employment. Feeling "lonely and shameful," she questioned if it was a "me problem" before posting on social media, asking if other women her age shared similar experiences. The response was overwhelming, with thousands of women reporting comparable struggles.

Duguid, who resides in north London, suspects AI-powered recruitment tools are a contributing factor. She has since "Botoxed" her CV, removing details that could indicate her age and extensive experience. "AI holds a mirror up to society. It's a reflection of our bias," she stated. "I'm not saying this is just a women's issue; I've had messages from men too. My point is about gendered ageism."

The BBC has since interviewed over 60 women, aged 40 to 65, across various industries, all struggling to secure employment. Most possess decades of senior-level experience and report submitting countless CVs, only to receive automated rejections or no reply at all. Like Duguid, many suspect AI recruitment tools are playing a significant role.

### "Too Senior" – A Code for "Old"?

Koeyli Jaluka, 49, who has held senior positions in manufacturing, corporate, and healthcare, shared her experience. "I've never been in this position before. For the last 10–12 years I've been headhunted. Now I'm hunting for jobs and being relentlessly rejected." Made redundant nine months ago, she has applied for 442 jobs, with only a few responses. Occasionally, she's been told she's "too senior," which she interprets as "code for old." Despite two decades of experience and two degrees, her confidence has "taken a hit."

Jaluka attributes these difficulties to tighter budgets, AI screening, and increasingly narrow hiring criteria. "A lot of us have been told by career coaches to shave off the first 10 years of work on our CVs just to ensure we don't come across as having worked for too long."

Anna Cowie, 52, with a 30-year career in advertising, has been unemployed for nearly four years. She has lost count of the CVs she's sent, despite never having been jobless before. After decades working for major brands, most recently assisting with the launch of the new Battersea Power Station, she is now on jobseeker's allowance. Cowie has turned to volunteering for community festivals, finding that networking with real people offers a more promising avenue. "You're seen as a human and not just lines on paper."

### Widespread Fears and Expert Concerns

While it's often impossible to definitively know if AI tools were involved in a screening or rejection due to employers' reluctance to disclose recruitment process details, widespread fears persist that AI recruitment tools are disadvantaging mid-life women.

The City of London Women Pivoting to Digital Taskforce, which focuses on women in the financial and professional services sector, has voiced concerns about the increasing use of AI in recruitment and its impact on women. Caroline Haines, the taskforce's Chair, stated that their research revealed significant apprehension that AI used to screen job applications and CVs fails to recognize the valuable skills many experienced women possess.

"There is a high level of concern that AI at initial recruitment level... doesn't account for the skills of a vast body of women that could be very effective and therefore promote economic growth," Haines explained. For instance, women who have taken career breaks for childcare may have CV gaps that some AI screening systems could interpret negatively.

Looking at the broader picture, the taskforce estimates that AI and automation could displace hundreds of thousands of women's jobs by 2035. Utilizing data from the Department for Education's "Market and skills projections: 2020 to 2035," the taskforce projects that without substantial investment in retraining, companies could face over £750 million in severance costs. A recent survey by the digital taskforce of over 1,000 women found that 68% had not been offered opportunities by their employers to retrain or transition into digital roles.

"When the country is desperate for economic growth, we need to use whatever resource we have, and the resource of women who are mid-career, mid-experience. If they drop out of the market there are huge repercussions," Haines emphasized.

### The "Significant Harm" of Unregulated AI

The BBC understands that some London-based companies have ceased using AI tools in recruitment due to concerns about bias. Laura Holden, an AI lawyer and founder of the Bonsai AI and legal consultancy, believes companies often lack understanding of how these tools function, which has the potential to cause "significant harm." She argues that determining bias is difficult due to "a lack of regulation globally that requires providers to show how their tools work."

Holden cited CV screening tools and AI-scored interviews as areas where bias can emerge. She described one tool that grades CVs from A to D, encouraging recruiters to prioritize higher-ranked candidates. Others flag factors like a seven-year career gap as a "thing to note," potentially unfairly influencing decisions.

Holden noted that providers are "very quick" to claim their tools are safe and reduce bias, yet they design and market them in ways that encourage employers to reject large numbers of applicants based on AI-generated scores. While companies describe them as decision-support tools, she said they often operate as "automated decision-making systems." She advocates for mandatory testing and stronger regulation before AI recruitment tools are deployed, arguing that existing laws were not designed with AI in mind.

Dr. Eleanor Drage, a senior researcher at the University of Cambridge, stated that concerns about AI disadvantaging women in recruitment are "very justified." She argued that human recruiters are better equipped to recognize the value of candidates returning from career breaks, such as maternity leave, and the transferable skills they bring – qualities AI may overlook.

While Drage acknowledged it's "very difficult" to prove AI recruitment tools are inherently biased, she contended that the logic they operate by is "completely faulty" because they cannot assess a person's intrinsic value or personality in the way a human recruiter could. She added that many recruiters do not fully comprehend how these tools work, suggesting companies should use AI to evaluate their own hiring practices rather than to assess "vulnerable populations, like older women going back into the workforce, or people who've had a career break."

While Drage recognizes the benefits of these tools, such as helping hiring managers identify candidates with similar characteristics to previously hired individuals, she concludes that often "they're not on the side of the jobseeker."

### Legal Challenges and Industry Response

The concerns raised in this article by interviewees pertain to the broader use of AI-powered recruitment tools and are not directed at any single provider.

Workday, a prominent maker of AI-powered human resources software, is currently facing claims that it violated Californian law thousands of times by discriminating against job applicants at numerous major companies. The case is ongoing, with a ruling anticipated later this year.

The BBC contacted Workday, which denied the claims in the lawsuit, stating that its tools do not make hiring decisions. More generally, Workday emphasizes that its recruitment tools assist recruiters in identifying candidates who best match a job description based on their skills and experience, supporting rather than replacing human judgment. The company asserted that its AI is "rigorously tested" through its Responsible AI programme and "does not consider traits such as age or gender." Workday added that, when used responsibly, AI can help qualified candidates avoid "getting lost in the pile."

### Government and Mayoral Stance

A government spokesperson stated, "While AI can help employers manage large volumes of applications and reduce administrative burdens, it is vital that recruitment processes remain fair, transparent and accessible. Existing legal protections, including equality and data protection law, already apply to AI systems, and we will act where additional protections are needed."

A spokesperson for Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan acknowledged that AI presents both opportunities and challenges, particularly as women are more likely to work in AI-exposed roles. They noted that the mayor has endorsed recommendations from the London AI and Jobs Taskforce to help employers adopt AI responsibly and support workers through the transition.

As for Stacey Duguid, she has established a community chat and platform to help women feel less isolated and to assist companies in addressing these issues. "I want us, as a group, to be heard and seen. And for gendered ageism to become a thing of the past. Because if we're lucky, we all get old."