To think sacking this volunteer to a U.S charity was a complete over reaction (Title edited by MNHQ at request of OP)

[HermioneWeasley]

The MS society in America has dismissed a 90 year old woman who has volunteered for them for SIXTY YEARS because she raised a question about pronoun use in emails.

they have doubled down on this decision issuing the following statement

“Recently, a volunteer, Fran Itkoff, was asked to step away from her role because of statements that were viewed as not aligning with our policy of inclusion.”

how can the people running these organisations be so out of touch with how people feel about these issues? They’re insane and frankly
cruel.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13088453/ms-society-slammed-firing-elderly-volunteer-pronouns.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

Ok, first part -

You can not declare her views are not incompatible, because you do not know on what basis the service is contracted. If the MS Society's funding is entirely on the premise that the service operates a fully "inclusive" service, and it is perhaps bound by the strictures of parent organisations, which most services that make use of volunteers are, then I can see a scenario where anyone questioning gender ideology would give management palpitations. I'm not saying that is what happened here, only that until you know for certain exactly how an organisation is funded, and the terms of their contract, and their constitution, it's practically impossible to make cast-iron assertions about what might be incompatible with their service.

Second part -

Yes, my organisation is, of course, bound by the Equality Act like any other. EA is covered extensively as part of volunteer training. The Equality Act refers to Protected Characteristics though, and for the most part "views" are not Protected Characteristics. "Religion or Belief" certainly is, but even then, the law permits me to discriminate if your "beliefs" are fundamentally incompatible with the provision of my service, or would actually place me in breach of my contracted terms, or would present an intolerable safeguarding risk to my service users.

Who did you write to, I wouldn’t mind sending one myself.

Ok. I’ve reported it and asked them to add that clarification

This is who I sent it to, might not be the best address to send it to though, you might be able to find a manager email or similar - that would be better Supporter Care Team <[email protected]>

I certainly hope you didn't send this to MS Society UK, since this has nothing to do with them. If you're based in the US and sent this to the appropriate charity, carry on.

Should maybe just point out again that the story relates to the US MS Society, and the UK organisation is entirely separate and unconnected

the law permits me to discriminate if your "beliefs" are fundamentally incompatible with the provision of my service, or would actually place me in breach of my contracted terms, or would present an intolerable safeguarding risk to my service users

Do you mean via the genuine occupational requirement route, or is there some other one I’m not familiar with? Safeguarding - yes, ok. This isn’t safeguarding here though. There is absolutely no planet on which not agreeing with pronouns in email signatures would come close to meeting the threshold of a GOR, and if any org tried to defend direct discrimination of someone for that reason it would likely be struck out with costs. But also if someone is fundamentally incompatible with your service that is not the same as rejecting a volunteer for “any reason the organisation sees fit”.

Also to be a fully inclusive service the MS society can only have volunteers who agree with pronouns in email signatures? That’s the net effect of your first paragraph. If she were addressing trans service users with the wrong pronouns that would be totally different but there is no evidence at all that she has.

Given MS can present differently in people of the female sex, I’d say if anything being so determined that gender ideology is beyond debate and that talking of the relevance of sex is a “transphobic dog whistle” etc is far more likely to be incompatible with the need for the MS society to meet the needs of its female users (and females are more likely to get MS than males)

1. That is in the States.
2. No one knows what the woman said, 90 yrs old or not. She may have caused untold offence with her 'confusion' or have form for being difficult. Or perhaps not. Point is, none of you know.
3. Don't believe everything you read. Or at least, don't form strong opinions on half a story and put them out there for all to see. That's foolish.

As for whoever is emailing MS Society UK, about this...omg. Engage brain before action.

Exactly this.

Please pause and think before firing angry emails off to the wrong charity without being in possession of all the facts.

You can not declare her views are not incompatible, because you do not know on what basis the service is contracted. If the MS Society's funding is entirely on the premise that the service operates a fully "inclusive" service, and it is perhaps bound by the strictures of parent organisations, which most services that make use of volunteers are, then I can see a scenario where anyone questioning gender ideology would give management palpitations

That's not correct. Management can have palpitations if they like, but they cannot refuse to employ someone who is GC, because they are GC. That's literally what the Forstater ruling says.GC beliefs are WORIADS and are covered by the protected characteristic of 'belief' in the Equality Act. You can ask your staff/volunteers to respect others' beliefs, but you can't refuse to employ them because of their beliefs. Just like a CofE school can't refuse to employ a Muslim teacher, same basis in law.

Yes, my organisation is, of course, bound by the Equality Act like any other. EA is covered extensively as part of volunteer training. The Equality Act refers to Protected Characteristics though, and for the most part "views" are not Protected Characteristics.

The belief that sex is binary, fixed and immutable is specifically included under the protected characteristic of belief. That's the law. For the most part beliefs are not protected under that characteristic, but that one is.

"Religion or Belief" certainly is, but even then, the law permits me to discriminate if your "beliefs" are fundamentally incompatible with the provision of my service, or would actually place me in breach of my contracted terms, or would present an intolerable safeguarding risk to my service users.

I can't see how a belief which has been tested in court and found to be WORIADS could be fundamentally incompatible with a legal service. As above, a Muslim is entitled to their belief, and you cannot discriminate against them for that belief. Nor would being a Muslim be in breach of terms of your service, or present an intolerable safeguarding risk. I think you'd be on very shaky ground, if you tried to argue that it was. The belief that sex is binary, fixed and immutable is protected by the Equality Act in the exact same way as a Muslim's beliefs are protected. You may need to check your understanding of the Equality Act with a lawyer, if you genuinely think you can discriminate again people for holding a legally protected belief.

@Crabble

I'll just reiterate that I'm not in disagreement that the MS Society appear to have jumped the gun somewhat in this particular instance.

Everything else I've posted in this thread is in relation to the specifics of how my particular organisation operates with regard to the selection of volunteers.

First off, Pronouns is not something that my organisation concerns itself with, so I have no particular views on that matter at all. One of our commissioning organisations is big on pronouns, but so far that hasn't made it's way into the terms of our contract, I have no intention of bringing it up, and so far as I'm concerned, whether or not it should be something we consider at any point in the future is a battle for other people to fight.

My point is, that without knowing exactly how the MS Society is funded, it's impossible to say what, precisely, would could be deemed incompatible with the provision of their service. I am not suggesting that the MS Society can only be fully inclusive if it's members bear pronouns on badges, I did not mean to imply this, only that if this is a stipulation of one of their contracts of service then I can understand why the management might be on edge about a volunteer either questioning it or challenging it. It's likely their service operates entirely on donations alone, so terms of contract are wholly irrelevant, but in the UK at least that is a very pertinent reason why you will sometimes see third sector organisations being very antsy about non-compliance. It could, in theory have catastrophic consequences for continuation of contract and funding. It's not even as if the members of the organisation themselves need be particularly militant about this sort of thing, but if your funding is entirely dependent on adhering to your terms of contract, you don't really have any choice in the matter.

I’m sorry but there is 100% more to this story than this article suggests. The fact the Society doubled down on their decision suggests this woman HAD done something sackable, but of course they aren’t allowed to go running off to the papers to give their side of the story.

She’s probably been asked numerous times to do something or to behave a more appropriate way with a colleague, and has refused.

If that’s not true then I hope she wins an appeal or court action if it goes that far. But she won’t manage that by shooting her mouth off to the papers and causing additional reputational damage to a charitable organisation she claims to hold dear.

Please don't send anything to MS UK, they are not the organisation in question - it is USA based.

Sheesh.

Yup.

I really do not envy the poor Comms staff at MS UK today.

@nothingcomestonothing

That's not correct. Management can have palpitations if they like, but they cannot refuse to employ someone who is GC, because they are GC. That's literally what the Forstater ruling says.GCbeliefs are WORIADS and are covered by the protected characteristic of 'belief' in the Equality Act. You can ask your staff/volunteers to respect others' beliefs, but you can't refuse to employ them because of their beliefs. Just like a CofE school can't refuse to employ a Muslim teacher, same basis in law

I'll just reiterate that I'm referring exclusively to volunteers, not salaried staff. It is not a case of "employment".

WORIADS views do not take precedence over the protected characteristics of our service users, and regardless of the fact you might complete the training course and pass DBS, ultimately the decision on suitability or otherwise rests entirely with the management of the organisation, and yes, certain WORIADS views voiced out loud are enough to ensure that you will not be considered suitable.

It's like when the Telegraph publishes another hit piece on the National Trust saying they're banning Christmas / Easter. The poor social media teams.

I wonder if they have also deleted her name from the ‘ please consider remembering us with a legacy’ and ‘ your donation to help keep our valuable charity viable’ list?

🤔

Never has a user name been more apt 😂

Volunteers would be protected in the same way as paid employees. You cannot discriminate against someone because they hold a protected belief. You can't. If you do, you're breaking the law. If you are rejecting volunteers because they hold a legally protected belief, you are breaking the law.

WORIADS beliefs are a protected characteristic. There is no hierarchy of protected characteristics in the Equality Act. Service users PC do not outrank volunteers PCs.

Seriously, if you are rejecting volunteers purely on the grounds that they hold a belief which has been deemed WORIADS and therefore a PC under the Equality Act, you are breaking the law.

.

Goodness, let's hope you are never on a jury with those levels of guesswork.

There might be more to the story. Perhaps someone in a position of power dislikes her because she is popular, long serving and kind. Lots of arseholes work in charities. Bullying is rife. She might be a perfectly lovely older lady for all you know.

I'm surprised you didn't go the whole hog and brand her a Karen. What a nasty, baseless and judgemental post.

certain WORIADS views voiced out loud are enough to ensure that you will not be considered suitable.
Had a v quick look as my break is about to end.. which views? Biological sex is real? There is violence to women and girls?

It isn't a case of "being out of touch with how people feel". If your commissioners and funders tell you "these are the conditions for your funding, like it or lump it", "feel" doesn't come into it. You are utterly dependant on that income, so what they say goes.

"What they say goes" sets a very bad precedent and is part of the reason why this sort of thing is happening, We have already had the #nodebate from the trans lobby.