Work has a ‘Leadership Development Programme’ for Women and Ethnic Minority People

Leadership training like this probably has nothing much to do with facing barriers. In my experience a program like this is the same as the one they would offer to anyone identified as being able to benefit from leadership training. They are just targeting groups they think are under-represented as leaders in the company.

No, I don't think your analysis makes any sense OP, and I'm not sure why you'd even think that.

Also, ChatGPT isn't reliable even for simple facts, much less anything more.

Lets assume an organisation is genuinely interested in providing training for career development (or some such phrase).

It is quite clear that those offering these type of services say the first thing you need to do is survey the workforce.

And assuming they know how to collect annonymous data that can be related to the protected characteristics, whatever training etc is offered should be based on what seems to be most needed linked to those protected characteristics.

Without doing that it is just tokenism by management, or as others have suggested a money saving exercise.

And in fact if this type of survey was done regularlly it would also reveal what progress the employer had made in creating a more equal work place year by year.

It would depend on the program. When I was big 4 we participated in a reverse mentoring program with partners. Mentors were women and ethnic minorities, they were all underrepresented at senior levels, all groups seen as having less ‘organic’ contact and influence with the partnership and less vocal in the workplace, and this was to give partners insight into their background and perspective as well as give them the opportunity to connect directly at partner level. This seemed reasonable to me and it was a decent program run by people trying to make things better and participated in by partners doing the same.
the way they told you off is unbelievably totally not ok though.

I was on a similar scheme for women, ethnic minority and people with disabilities. In practice it was run together to save money, as there was a huge amount of overlap of content. But sessions often turned into rows on victim hierarchy so it wasn't that useful. But it's a DEI tick box, and some people got lots out of it.
It might not be exactly legal correct, but cost and practically will always play a part in a voluntary scheme. And it's better than nothing.

They have shown that they really do need a "Women in leadership" program if they are shutting you down/ belittling you for speaking up and making a suggestion. Oh the irony.
Awful for you. I hope you can turn this around into something positive at work.

I think the law and the SC ruling are red herrings here.

The issue is more about the appropriateness of the training and how it would deal with the different and specific barriers for each group properly. There is often a false equivalence in understanding oppressions, inequality and prejudice and what leads to barriers in career progression. It's not all the same.

While there may be a few basic similarities, once you get into the details personal experiences and the issues faced it would be very different. Maybe a fantastic facilitator could use this to encourage empathy snd understanding between the different groups- but that isn't really the point? I am also very suspicious of anyone who claims to do "diversity" training but attempts to cover all groups. The most they can effectively do is explain the law and your organisation's policy to you. I have also witnessed the most awful and pointless derailing of these sessions by people who really aren't experiencing the same difficulties.

This all sounds like poor practice on the part of HR and senior managers. Squishing two groups together like this suggests lazy and poor thinking around DEI and a more performative than genuine attitude by the business. I have done a fair amount of workplace training and each time it has been really specific to the protected characteristic - within disability training for example it has even been divided up further- around deafness, learning disabilities and physical ones.

i think your strongest argument is if the progression of these groups is to be genuinely addressed then they should be separated, otherwise the programme can only deliver the most superficial level of support. And yes women of colour can/should go to both.

As for the dressing down by a group of men the irony of that is just gobsmacking, and I would say another example of poor practice and a lack of genuine concern or understanding.

Just to add, I can see LOADS of ways in which you could run a programme of this sort that was equally useful to both ethnic minorities and women. It could focus simply on leadership skills, networking opportunities, etc., rather than on the specific challenges faced by each separate characteristic. Or, if it wanted to include such a focus, it could have within its timetable a couple of women-specific or ethnic-minority-specific sessions that did address these sorts of specific issues.

Why on earth would you think that there was something illegal about such a programme? The mind boggles.

I don't understand why you think it is illegal to offer a programme for two protected characteristics.

Are you misunderstanding the significance of the Supreme Court decision? That absolutely did NOT say anything of the kind. It just clarified that an allegedly 'single sex' space that admitted both women and trans women was not in fact single sex at all.

Sooo much misunderstanding around this simple decision.

According to Akua Reindorf (KC and EHRC commissioner) if two characteristics are used everyone must have both - so your group could be ethnic minority women but not ethnic minorities and women, which is exactly what you said. There’s an easy way round this which is to run the groups separately and it’s a worthwhile initiative.

WTF an ill-informed men-only group was doing humiliating you I do not know. So sorry this happened OP and a perfect illustration of why your company needs that course.

it really does not do that.

You are right. Sex is one protected characteristic, race another. So, legitimately (now and always) there can be a programme for women. There can also be a programme for ethnic minority women and a programme for ethnic minorities. So, three groups are possible. But you cannot lump 'ethnic minorities' in with 'women as a sex class' because then you have a mixed sex group rather than one prioritising women so there is no longer a 'women' group targetted. Your work place needs this explaining in words of one syllable. Or they could read the EA2010 and the SC judgement - though that might be quite difficult for them since the men you work with seem intellectually challenged!

Yes, they all seem to be hoping positive action can be used as a loophole. I think we're all going to be learning a lot about section 158 over the coming months.

You absolutely have to consider the two groups and their needs separately.

For each group separately you have to be able to identify a disadvantage, different needs or disproportionately low participation. The positive action must then be a proportionate means of overcoming the disadvantage, meeting the different needs or increasing the participation of that group.

But if you do that analysis for one group and then do it again for the other, and your shared positive action meets the test for each group separately, then I can't see how it would be unlawful.

That's where WI, Hampstead Ladies' Pond and the fox botherer will fall down IMO - shared facilities and clubs for women + men who say they are women are not a positive action for women.

Positive action is allowed where there is under representation.

If the program is leadership development (ratger than peer support), then it’s a positive action to address under representation that has been identified and individuals from those groups can be offered opportunities as a positive action.

In this case the positive action is access to additional leadership development training.

It’s fine under the legislation. You might not like it, but that doesn’t make it illegal.

If you read any of the guidance of Positive Action in the work place they all stress that whatever it is that is offered relates to whatever are the common negative factors stopping someone from that protected characteristic advancing at work.

So clearly training or support for women is not going to be the same as for people, or either sex, facing racist discrimination.

The only common factor for those less likely to advance in the work place is the attitude of the dominate group ie white men.

Makes you think that the training or support or whatever would be to re-educate white men.

Is it? , you still have to have a group in order to engage positive action that passes muster.

I do believe this is both WI argument in defence of including trans identifying men, and Hampstead women's pond argument.

We shall see.

I think you are wrong BTW

This is mixing up the rules for associations with the rules for positive action. They don't work the same.

@LaundryLoop

You are correct.

Some people on here have an incorrect approach.

The EQA is all about not excluding people with a protected characteristic without a good reason.

So if you want to exclude certain groups, then the exclusive group must share a protected characteristic, that addresses a particular need or disadvantage.

The group can be about one or more protected characteristics, but if it is about more than one all members of said group have to share all the protected characteristics.

So a a group men who are over sixty would be allowed as age and sex would be engaged in order to address social exclusion.

I suppose the question is that are the two seperate groups you describe seperate in any way, if they are just conjoined by virtue of a mutual course then people excluded from this, such as disabled person, or a white male could complain that there is no legitimate aim or proportionate means to exclude them, as there is clearly characteristics that are not mutually shared within this group.

I don't think this is affected by the supreme court ruling.

Some people are mixing it up with the rules for associations where, for example, you can have an association for disabled women - all members must be women AND disabled, but not an association for women and disabled people - all members must be women OR disabled.

The employment code of practice (which is not due for review) has a whole chapter on positive action which includes this:

12.15
More than one group with a particular protected characteristic may be
targeted by an employer, provided that for each group the employer has an
indication or evidence of disadvantage, different needs or disproportionately
low participation.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/employercode.pdf

Obviously if the positive action is based on different needs then a combined action would not be appropriate but if it's based on disadvantage or low participation then it could be.

The fox botherer is trying to claim that you could have 'trans inclusive' women's spaces as positive action but that fails because there's nothing positive about it for women!

I think as PP has said, in this case a lot depends on the nature of the programme. Is it the kind of thing where people spend time discussing the specific barriers they face or is it more skills based?

Interesting. My large company also has this, but also for anyone from a low socioeconomic background or non-hetero (or possibly disabled but I’m not sure on this).

In my company the stats would say women have a much better chance of succeeding than ethnic or other minorities and so I’d be a bit worried that if you’re right then it’d be the woman’s development program that was dropped.

But in my company the programme isn’t about your barriers because of your non-straight white middle class male attributes, it’s personal development training that anyone would get something out of, so we don’t need to have common issues - it’s just a way to make us better equipped in the workplace and provide an advantage to offset the systemic disadvantages.

Sex not gender.

If disabled people of both sexes are under represented
and women are under represented
dealing with under representation in general would cover both.
See also ethnic minorities (just as long as they avoid the mess that is 'BAME')

And be within the law.

To be honest I think some of the modules probably overlap and this is more about group size to get the most value from an external trainer than anything else. They are defining two distinct groups, just choosing to train them together as their needs overlap.

It is not illegal to combine characteristics.

A group for disabled women is lawful.
A group for Hindu men is lawful
A group for lesbian over 65s is lawful

I, as a white woman, can’t relate to experiences of racism. A black man wouldn’t be able to relate to my experiences of misogyny. We face very different barriers at work, and I think grouping them together is lazy and won’t deliver on the aims.

What even is the aim/purpose/nature of the programme? Is it actually for you all to sit down and share experiences, where discussion groups made up of reasonably similar people could enhance the psychological safety? If so, have you checked if they’ve considered that factor in the design of the groups and discussion prompts? Or is it to give everyone training via talks from the front and the delegates won’t be interacting?

Vast difference between lazy design and not meeting its aims well vs breaking the equality act!