Anti-gay views in the workplace

[VenusOfWillendorf]

Last week, I went to lunch at our work cafeteria with some colleagues. We were chatting about what we had done over the weekend, and one of them said that he has participated in protest march against gay marriage in a city about three hours from where we live. I was quite shocked by this, and said I needed to finish something back in the office, and left the table. It was about halfway through the meal (I hadn't finished eating, neither had they).
My boss came to me in the afternoon and said that I'd come across as rude. I said that I found his views offensive and couldn't continue eating there. She said he's entitled to do as he likes at the weekend, and that I should perhaps apologise.
I don't agree with her at all. Am I being unreasonable??

[Some background - the colleague in question I know to be quite religious (he's Christian, but I don't know which church). I am not gay myself (though my brother is) and can't stand any form of homophobia].

The point is that certain characteristics are protected by law in the workplace. So if your old fashioned and deeply religious bigoted grandparents couldn't stand to be in a work environment which is inclusive and accepting of difference, then they would have to leave the workforce. If they couldn't keep their opinions to themselves, they would be subject to a disciplinary process.

No-one is talking about 'thought police' here - including the OP. You can think what you like. But if what you think doesn't help create an inclusive workplace which is positively welcoming of difference, then you can't express those views at work.

Now interestingly religion and sexuality are both protected, so from a legal pov I'm not sure how this would play out...

And it is extremely wrong to suggest all Catholics are homophobic btw.

positively welcoming of difference

Unless you work for the kum-by-yah supplement of the Guardian, no workplace has to do more (or should do less) than accept difference. There is no obligation to be positively welcoming. "Turn up, do your job, go home afterwards, don't write on the lavatory walls" is a perfectly reasonable HR policy. They don't have to insist that everyone likes their colleagues, or even understands them, just that they don't abuse them.

And the whole "offending" thing is a minefield. Some of us used to go to the pub on Fridays after work. I doubt it ever got above 30% of the group on any one Friday, or about 60% of the group over the course of months: it was a pretty flexible arrangement, and some people never came because they had long commutes, didn't like pubs, didn't like their colleagues or just could think of better things to do. Sometimes it would be two people, sometimes it didn't happen. A colleague who didn't drink for religious reasons complained, formally, that we were deliberately excluding him. HR quite rightly told him to get a grip, but a weaker HR director could have got quite silly at that point.

A colleague who didn't drink for religious reasons complained, formally, that we were deliberately excluding him
On my work Equality course, I learned that the situation you describe could be construed as indirect discrimination?

OP, I think you did exactly the right thing. I think you were perfectly within your rights to remove yourself from a situation you found uncomfortable. You were offended, you removed yourself. The end.

Your boss needs a big slap (metaphorically speaking). How DARE she suggest you smooth things over. The person in the wrong was idiot boy. He is absolutely allowed his views. He absolutely shouldn't have shared them in the workplace.

It's heart-warming to see so many people have strong feelings against anti gay-marriage protesters. Reading this thread has actually made me smile, in an odd kind of way. Knowing that marriage equality has the backing of lots of non LGBT people is amazing. The media likes to portray it otherwise. The day I can eventually marry my DP, I will silently thank every single sane and fair minded person who made it happen.

I can't fully rebut your post without outing myself friday, but many, many companies have moved beyond 'toleration' - which is what you describe - to policy which aims to create an inclusive workforce - which is one which welcomes difference and allows every employee to bring their best self to work every day.

I have broad experience of this across many FTSE 100 companies (although not the Guardian).

The pub example you describe - possibly could be interpreted as exclusion, certainly if there was evidence that decisions/promotions etc were made on the basis of a particular friendship group. And exclusion often leads to indirect discrimination.

For eg if you'll forgive me for assuming you're a woman - if all the directors of your business were male, and they all golfed together three times a year, and a few (all male) senior leaders were allowed to join them, and then the next crop of promotions came from that group, would you not think it was a discriminatory practice?

On my work Equality course, I learned that the situation you describe could be construed as indirect discrimination?

I'd love to see the employment tribunal. It would be a complete car crash. Which was pretty much our HR director's response.

Who people go and drink with after work, and where they do it, is nothing to do with the employer. The employer cannot issue an instruction which says that once people leave the workplace, they must only associate in designated alcohol-free zones. What do you suggest an employer should do, if indeed you think this is discriminatory?

but many, many companies have moved beyond 'toleration' - which is what you describe - to policy which aims to create an inclusive workforce

And that's great, and I fully support that. That doesn't mean they're obliged to, though, does it?

would you not think it was a discriminatory practice?

Yes. But there's a whole set of links in that chain which have to be true for it to be a problem. And the onus would be on the complainant to provide at least some evidence that it was true.

And apart from anything else, there's a hell of a step from "I don't drink alcohol because of my religion" to "I will not be in the same building as alcohol because of my religion". That's going to make booking a venue for any social event whatsoever extremely difficult, and there's a very high threshold to cross before one person can impose that strong a constraint on the activities of the remainder of the group.

Friday, with respect your training needs updating.

Things that happen in the pub, out of work time, with work people is work business. see here

Of course the employer can't issue an instruction to go out in an alcohol free zone. But a good team manager will find a way to include that person, whether it's by altering the venue or occasionally suggesting an alcohol-free venue. And of course, by not discriminating against the 'left out' person!

X-posts - absolutely I agree discrimination can't be proved where discrimination doesn't exist - and that's the key thing, to not discriminate.

Actually, Friday, you're wrong. It was made quite clear to me and my colleagues on our induction course at work (10 years ago now) that social events after work with 3 or more people could be construed as work events, and behaviour there had to meet the standards that would be expected in work (of course, being a right bunch of barrack room lawyers, and also knowing each other reasonably well socially by this time, we had great fun winding the course tutor up with questions like "so a work place relationship between two colleagues is OK then, but 3 or more in a polyamorous relationship would be a no-no" - I hasten to add that we do all behave properly, we were just messing around).

As for the example you give - I think the point is that if it could be demonstrated that promotions were always within the group of pub-goers, for instance, it would look bad at a tribunal.

Things that happen in the pub, out of work time, with work people is work business

It's quite a step from having a drink to sexual harassment, wouldn't you say?

But a good team manager will find a way to include that person

The team manager was nothing to do with it: he never came, as he didn't drink and had a long commute and none of us liked him very much. I think you're confusing semi-official work events with just people going to the pub after work.

I want to see the ET or, better, EAT judgement in which it's held to be discriminatory for people to go to the pub after work just because some people don't want to go to the pub. Not the "oh, it might be held to be discriminatory" that used to frighten bystanders, but a real, cited ET or EAT. If you have one to hand, I'll happily put my hand up to being wrong (I've been a student for four years, so things might have moved on).

Did you miss my post where I said that for discrimination to be proved it has to have happened? But in a particular workplace culture which does in fact exclude people based on whether or not they drink, it is much, much easier to prove discrimination. Again, where it happens.

And the link was simply to prove that 'out of work' really does count as 'in work' these days. Was the first thing that came up when I did this thing called googling...

For example, in your typical 'women in the city' ET cases it always comes up that the men go to lapdancing clubs which directly or indirectly exclude the woman. And this always comes up because it indicates a certain culture which is likely predisposed to discrimination.

It was made quite clear to me and my colleagues on our induction course at work (10 years ago now) that social events after work with 3 or more people could be construed as work events, and behaviour there had to meet the standards that would be expected in work

Perhaps I could set "show me the ET or, better, EAT judgement" to music, and do a little dance.

HR training people are very keen on saying things like "could be construed as" without having much evidence that it ever has been. They want to (a) show they're worth their money and (b) imply they know more than you, so they're hardly going to scale down the purported risk.

If your promotion processes are transparent and have properly constituted interview processes, then they will withstand review and tribunals. If you're reduced to waving around policies about who can go to the pub with whom, you've got deeper, more serious problems. If you're only promoting white men, and all you can show is that you discourage white men mixing off the premises, you're fucked.

I think the point is that if it could be demonstrated that promotions were always within the group of pub-goers,

Firstly, they'd have to show that was the case. And secondly, even if it were the case, they'd have to show that due process wasn't being followed. If the employer has properly written records of interviews, with contemporaneous notes and feedback delivered promptly and effectively to the applicants, and the decisions reached are defensible, no ET on earth is going to second-guess them just because people were going to the pub. If on the other hand you only promote white men and have no records of how you do it, the pub is hardly going to be the centre of the case.

If the allegation is raised that a cadre of people are drinking together and promoting together, then you need to be able to defend your promotion process. The way you do that is having a decent promotion process, not by attempting to remove the side-issues of how the cadre meets.

Did you miss my post where I said that for discrimination to be proved it has to have happened?

I think we're in violent agreement on that.

Right, I really need to bow out of this and do some work but it has been said several times that discrimination needs to happen first. So pretty much all of that post ^^ is redundant. However, back to my original post about inclusion - most big employers are now going above and beyond 'having properly constituted interview processes' towards 'interview processes which allow equality of opportunity to everyone and which recognise equality isn't offering the same thing to every person.'

"Whether they like it or not it's legal now, "

No it isn't, the steps have been taken for " Gay Marriage" to become legal around the end of March 2014, however Religious organisations can opt out, or individual Ministers.

Whilst I don't follow a religion that requires marriage or attending a Church, I think that it is important that Peopke have the right to follow their religion as they see fit.

Like it it not religious beliefs are a protected Characteristic under the Equality Law, so he cannot be subject to a telling off just for stating that he is taking part in a Church/Religious activity.

If, as the conversation went further he aired intolerant views, that we're not connected with his religion, then a directive needs to be given about acceptable conversations in the workplace. That works both ways, he has the right to practice his religion without it being rubbished.

I agree that the manager should of been told by the OP that she has the right not to listen to any conversation she deems upsetting or offensive to her (as anyone does) and so handled it in the right way.

It would become ridiculous if the Man had of been asked what he did at the weekend and had to reply "I'm not at liberty to say", it would make it more awkward than him simply stating what he did, especially as these protests are happening all over the UK by many Churches.

Had he of been pushed further it was then for him to state "that it wasn't a topic for conversation on a lunch break".

I work with a woman who is Muslim and she believes that dogs should not be pets (I work with other people who believe the same), we manage to not upset each other. My point is that you have to rub along with people at work, as l

Sorry, as long as their views don't go into offensive use if language and not just descriptive.

"I'd love to see the employment tribunal. It would be a complete car crash. Which was pretty much our HR director's response. "

I agree that your HR director is out of date, there have been lots of cases taken to tribunals that have been successful.

It is the "Old Boy Network" that has had to change its policies, the Legal Profession, Police Chiefs etc.

There has been directives issued constantly over the years about after work socialising can be indirect discrimination, even by accident.

It doesn't apply to every workplace, so isn't worth arguing about.

there have been lots of cases taken to tribunals that have been successful

That have been successful in the absence of proven discrimination in the workplace? Where going to the pub without the complainant, an invitation extended but declined, was held to be discrimination without there being a row about promotion, pay, redundancy pooling, shifts? On what grounds?

Whilst searching for successful employment tribunal cases, I came across various reports of one relating to my current employer.

Basically, a very senior manager/director was found to have (directly) racially discriminated against a more junior manager, leading to dismissal. The complaint was upheld and my employer (as an institution) had to pay a seven figure to cover hurt/loss of future earnings/loss of pension contributions. My employer appealed, but the appeal was rejected.

This seemed a very clear cut case. The discrimination was the manager's own, not a result of mistakenly flawed institute policy (or similar mitigation). Furthermore, the person (judge?) overseeing the tribunal accepted evidence that it was unlikely to be the first time such racial discrimination had been personally implemented by the manager/director.

How is it then possible that the person responsible for this racial discrimination is still employed at my place of work? I would have thought said person should have been sacked/forced to resign?