Anybody has a clue why having taken time off to care for her children is relevant for a potential employer now that she is 59 years old, and the likelihood of her having more children fairly low?
I don't think the article states precisely how much time, whether 2 years or 20, Colafrancesco took off from work to raise her children.
However, that's not to justify unequal hiring practices if and where such details keep employers from hiring Colafrancesco and women in similar positions.
She likely took off a lot more than 2 years (cbr says 13). Not working in your field for 13 years is a pretty easy way to fall out of touch with the latest practices.
Employers should treat her fairly, which would probably be treating her like a slightly above entry level candidate, since so much of her experience is so dated. If they're refusing to hire her at all, that's a problem. But if they're not valuing her experience from 13 years ago as equal to experience from last year, I understand.
Also, lying through omission is more acceptable in some places than others.
How many years we're talking about here and was she able to stay up to date with the latest developments and trends in her profession or industry?
Also, did she feel really "dismissed" after sharing this piece of info at interviews or just "disqualified" because "dismissed" is a strong word and entails humiliation and lack of respect unlike the other one?
It feels awful just thinking it in those terms but I can see how that can be used against parents that decide to stay home to take care of their children