Legal action against Eventbrite for unlawful discrimination

Argh. I'm currently listening to a diversity session (booked via Eventbrite...) on menopause in the workplace. One of the speakers just said "not everyone who goes through the menopause is a woman". Ffs.

I want to speak out but feel I cannot as this is a corporate event and my name has my organisation next to it and I'm concerned about repercussions. I HATE that I feel silenced on this topic.

What is your authority for your statement that a private person is not a company? I provided a statutory citation for the fact that the term person includes a body corporate. So, where is your authority?

A natural person is not a company.

You said
Eventbrite US isn’t a person

When I pointed out that was utter nonsense and that the statutory definition of person includes a company you still try to argue. You then helpfully agree that for the purposes of legal issues like contracts, companies are indeed persons - cheers for that.

You are great entertainment - I'll give you that.

@MoirasSaggyBundles
Think were going off your advice here:
”Eventbrite's obvious defence is that there was no discrimination under EqA and that the T&C applied and were invoked correctly. If they succeed, you go back to a claim under a contract with a US jurisdiction clause, and arguing Eventbrite incorrectly/unreasonably invoked their discretionary contractual rights under the community guidelines. You need advice about simultaneously bringing a claim under both contract and the EqA.”

Chaz you have used contract and agreement synonymously when they’re not the same thing either. Shall I go and point out more of your mistakes?

Not exactly a company is given the legal status of a person (that’s why they’re taxed, can enter into contracts and can be sued for manslaughter).

But a “private person” is never a company

So the phrase “a dispute between two private persons” always refers legally to two humans acting in their private capacity.

And the trans community** weren't the people receiving the service (for the purposes of the EqA) from Eventbrite in order to invoke any sort of obligation on the part of Eventbrite towards them. The service recipient and obligation was towards Spero.

**although I completely refute the notion that there was anything about Spero's event that should have cause for concern for the trans community, or that they were in any way excluded from it.

This is a lower bar than discriminatory, but your questions are good ones for a non-contractual EqA case filed here as to whether Eventbrite US had a statutory right to refuse to sell the tickets.

How does a US corporate entity have a statutory right under a piece of English legislation? The only persons with rights under he EqA are those persons with a protected characteristic.

FFS.

The T&Cs relate to a CONTRACTUAL claim.

Spero's intended action under the EqA is a STATUTORY TORT claim.

They are 2 completely different causes of action.
You cannot contract out of your rights under the EqA. The T&Cs don't trump the EqA.

Spero's already said she will likely go down the Part 8 route of a declaration on a point of law. THAT IS NOT A CONTRACTUAL CLAIM. If you don't know what that means procedurally, you should probably stop writing stupid posts.

The person whose characteristics are in question here is SPERO.

Snort.
I'm enjoying it though. Almost as amusing as messy bundles.

I would exercise caution in relying on the views of someone who appeared to say contracts were under UK law (until an epic backpedal) and has now wrongly stated that Eventbrite is not a person.

These are not the sort of errors I would expect from someone with their stated level of experience.

@Discovereads
In case you want to look into it further
Check Sch 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978
"Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate. [1889]"

A company is a legal person.

You must know that as an expert in international contracts!

@Discovereads thank you for that nuance - I was looking at the heading which mentioned discrimination. Any attempt to bring a case on belief rather than content I think will fail.

So, the plaintiff needs to prove one of the two: that the T&Cs are illegal, or that they weren't met.

It’s not a dispute between private persons, Eventbrite US isn’t a person.

@DadJoke
The bar they've set in their T&Cs is - is the content discriminatory against transgender people?

The bar they have in the T&Cs via the Community guidelines is - is the content disparaging towards a transgender individual or as a group.

This is a very low bar as disparagement merely means a lack of respect or belittling.

Text in full with lowest bar bolded:
”Don’t Post Hateful or Dangerous Content or Events That Discriminate Against or Threaten Any Societal Group, or Encourages Violence. This includes:

Hate speech, hateful ideologies and hateful activities that incite, encourage or engage in violence, intimidation, disparagement, harassment, or threats targeting an individual or group based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, immigration status, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age or veteran status. Terrorist symbols, activities and organisations or organised criminal activity”
www.eventbrite.co.uk/l/community-guidelines/

This is a lower bar than discriminatory, but your questions are good ones for a non-contractual EqA case filed here as to whether Eventbrite US had a statutory right to refuse to sell the tickets.

Yep. Uphill battle. Burden of proof on you. Most of the evidence to prove discrimination would be held by Eventbrite as circumstantial evidence of “my event was unpublished following complaints” isn’t sufficient to prove discrimination.

I have several guesses as to why the Eventbrite “review” takes 7 days to inform you they’re doing one and another 10 days to do it. It’s because that’s not all they are doing.

Been down that road. If you can get pro bono, go for it. These mega companies are very good at dragging legal matters out until the other party quits due to lack of resources to keep fighting.

The bar they've set in their T&Cs is - is the content discriminatory against transgender people?

So, the first question to address is: "In English law, can ticket sellers refuse to sell tickets for events which are discrimatory against people with a protected chracteristic?"

The second is "is this content discrimatory against people with that protected characteristic?"

If their decision meets both those tests, the case will fail.

Believing gay people go to hell is a protected belief - in fact all but "the most extreme beliefs may be worthy of respect in a democratic society, and therefore may amount to protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, save in circumstances where the beliefs involve the gravest form of hate speech which incites violence or seeks to destroy the Convention rights and freedoms of others."

@Spero
Dont think you can opt out per 9(l) as deadline is thirty days from the day you first used their services and that has passed. 9(d) exceptions is still open to you.

”The notice must be sent within thirty (30) days of your first use of the Services or your agreement to these Terms (whichever is later); otherwise, you will be bound to arbitrate disputes in accordance with the terms of those paragraphs.”

The ROI entity for Eventbrite is for payment processing of tickets only. It’s not an Eventbrite contracting entity for services.

per end of 1.2
”Note that irrespective of the entity with which you are contracting for purposes of Eventbrite Payment Processing, all other Services offered by Eventbrite are offered through either your local entity in the case of Eventbrite Argentina or Eventbrite Brazil, or Eventbrite US.”

Matches what I told you yesterday at 17:42 that you can opt out of the binding arbitration per 9(d). Which is always a good idea.

The ticket seller, Eventbrite, is in California USA. The services contract was between the OP and Eventbrite US. So yes this was a cross border digital service.

Yes, but do they have the specific law that we have now? From the Maya forstarter case.

We now have the gender critical belief that sex is real and that it matters fully protected by law.

IANAL so I am thinking about this like a non lawyer. I'm sure discoverreads could well be right about the contract law side of things. But it seems to me that shouldn't effect how this is dealt with under the EA.

You don't need to have a contract with a company to experience discrimination by them under the EA. To my mind it's just a matter of fact that they are offering a service in England - someone in England buys a ticket to an event in England which has been advertised on the site by the organiser who is in England. The price is in £. So surely they will meet the criteria of providing goods & services under the EA? (Or is it not that simple?).

But if I'm wrong it does raise this interesting point about california tech companies holding power over a great deal of cultural life here & in the rest of the world. It's been kind of OK for us because America does have human rights laws & anti discrimination laws, and has similar social mores to here. It could have looked v different if by some accident of fate the web companies were mostly based in the gulf States and reflected their social mores. But this issue (gender id v sex) is really showing up the discrepancy.

That is quite shocking. I hope though that the tide is turning and that more solicitors/barristers see advantage in taking on GC cases. Things already seem better than they were.