Period dignity officer update

I don’t think they could use ‘potentially identifying’ if n=0

There was at least one candidate

Including where n=0.

The college fighting to take the hit could suggest that there's something that they don't want getting out to the other partners or that nobody wants going into the public domain.

Or that, rather than friends in there, she's got something juicy to make sure that they don't hang it on her/protect her friend.

I wonder how his wife feels about this special friendship?

The FOIs were refused because was a very small pool of candidates & it would identify them/ him.
Get the popcorn in for this 😀

That would mean less than five. Numbers less than five are generally not released.

From the BBC

"The partnership responsible for hiring Mr Grant, which comprised representatives from Dundee and Angus College, Perth College, Dundee Council and Angus Council,

Mr Grant's lawyers have argued that all of the partnership organisations should be liable for the discrimination alleged.
However, Dundee and Angus College have said that they want to take sole responsibility for defending the claims.
The disagreement over who the case will proceed against was the focus of the latest hearing in Dundee.
A decision on this will be made at a later date."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-65347529

Ooh. Interesting.
I've just seen there are some updates.
Dundee and Angus, who employ the woman who personally chose Jason want to take the hit for legal liability. She must have some good friends there.

"Mr Grant’s lawyers have argued that all of the partnership organisations should be liable for the discrimination alleged.
However, Dundee and Angus College have said that they want to take sole responsibility for defending the claims."

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10579146/male-period-dignity-officer-begins-sex-discrimination-action-after-being-axed/

News coverage from the time.

twitter.com/thecourieruk/status/1561742726563270656?s=46

"We consider that some of the information you have requested, relating to numbers of applicants and interviewees is exempt from disclosure under Section 38 (1) (b) of FOISA, due to the low numbers involved. This is because it is likely that individuals may be identifiable from the information you have requested and the disclosure of this information would therefore contravene the Data Protection Act (2018) and the UK GDPR."

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/perioddignityyregionalleaddoff

They didn't request personal details but rather the numbers of applicants/interviewees +/- sex of candidates.
But this was deemed to be identifying.

Which could only be the case if you happened to know the one other candidate - if there was another candidate.

Honk! 😁

FOI cannot be used to obtain personal data, or data that could be identifiable, so I am not surprised this failed.

No. Discimination occurs when an individual with protected characteristic is treated less favourably than one without. So in this case someone with the protected characteristic of ‘male’ treated less favourably than someone without this ie ‘female’.

I think you are confusing this with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment where a transwoman - a man with the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ - must not be treated less favourably than a man without this protected characteristic,

Just thinking - isn't the comparator for a male another male in a sex discrimination case?

Hello honk

I agree, they'll settle and the underside of the rug will get dirtier.

I am honk

I think that was meant to say "I think" !

I am honk there were at least three FOIs requesting details of other candidates and all the FOIs were denied.
I feel pretty sure that this will be settled out of court one way or another and those interesting little details will never be revealed.
Sadly. 🙁

Yup. They could.

That would imply that anyone who hired their white wife (to use a stereotype based on historical practice) to be their secretary would be able to be sued for discrimination if a black candidate with better qualifications applied.

I was under the impression that the balance of probabilities had to lie with the reason for hiring being on the basis of the protected characteristic - not simply a distinction on paper between a successful and an unsuccessful candidate.

Were there any other candidates? I thought part of the issue with the recruitment was the post had an incredible short closing date and was not advertised beyond the in-house job vacancy website.

It could be all of those resulting in other candidates being discriminated against when she was so intent on her friend being employed.

It's as messy as any other part of it.

They potentially picked somebody white over anybody not, somebody able bodied over anybody not, somebody male over anybody not, somebody without direct lived experience over anybody not. That's not evidence of compliance with recruiting or discrimination laws.

You seemed to indicate that candidates might have a case because the hiree was a friend of someone with influence as though that were the reason for him being employed over better qualified candidates. Which surprised me.

But are you actually saying that it's not about the hiree being a friend, but rather that they might have indicated to candidates that they hired him because he was a man and the candidates weren't (even if it was to cover up that he was a friend)?

Obviously the whole thing was a fuck up from when they started to craft the job description! This is an aside, I'm just trying to understand where the lines are for employment tribunals.

...wasn't as, well, lovely as he is.

It's possible - it's not the nepotism, it's the discounting of potentially better candidates.

So why did you discount this lady who has direct experience in support work with domestic violence, sexual health and speaks three community languages?

'She wasn't a good fit'

So a fully able-bodied, young, white male with no direct experience was somebody you felt would fit in better with the team than a woman of a minority ethnicity and direct experience?

'Oh yes, he'd have no problem talking about vulval soreness to teenage girls.'

So what exactly was wrong with her?

'He's absolutely fantastic, everybody loves him, it's time we had men talking about clots, clitoral pain and diarrhoea to children. He's got 2 lovely girls, you know'. She just wasn't as

There is a real possibility that they are also being taken to Tribunal by candidates who were better qualified/experienced and had one of more other Protected Characteristic but saw the role being given to a young, fit, white male because he had a friend influencing the panel.

Is this grounds for a discrimination claim? I didn't think nepotism was unlawful (though, obviously, unethical and undesirable in a public role).

@NeverDropYourMooncup you are absolutely correct potential applicants may have been discriminated against.

There are so many things they did incorrectly/poorly that it was completely unprofessional.