Joseph Rowntree Foundation

[catgirl1976]

Went to apply for a role with Joseph Rowntree.

I was having a look on the careers page and noticed they were a Stonewall Top 100 employer.

Scrolled down a bit further to see them proudly claiming that they welcome applicants regardless of:

age
gender identity
disability
marriage or civil partnership
pregnancy or maternity
religion or belief
race
sexual orientation
transgender status
social economic background

No mention of sex. And some interesting variations from the Equality Act's list of protected characteristics.

Should I complain? And to whom? Is there anyone on MN / Twitter who could highlight this? I am SO annoyed that the characteristic of sex has been thrown out of the window.

Link to the careers page here

www.jrht.org.uk/about-us/careers

I ahve a vague recollection of them meaning well but giving money to some iffy causes.

[citation needed] I know but a bit of digging could well bear fruit.

There we go, CAGE was one such, am sure there were others:

www.itv.com/news/story/2015-03-07/charities-withdraw-support-for-cage-after-groups-comments-on-jihadi-john/

Oh dear. That is iffy. As you say, probably well meaning.

I'm not applying for the role now btw, I don't feel as a woman I would be welcome.

I'm not applying for the role now btw

Obviously you decide based on your own situation, but we need more feminist women in organisations like this dragging their work back to a more grounded reality.

That is true. I just think I struggle to get through the interview without asking them why they didn't feel the need to mention they welcome applications from women.

If it helps, in my current role I recently dug my heels in about changing "pregnant women" to "pregnant people" in our policies. We compromised on just using "the employee" so not a huge win but......it did spark some conversations.

It's interesting they list gender identity and transgender status.

I noticed that - why have it twice? Why leave out sex?

I assume because Stonewall told them to.

OP a lot of employers are just putting everything they think they should put on their list, on their list.

it's pretty meaningless. I'm not sure if I'd ditch applying on that basis - just a thought. There's often no connection in the brain of the organisation and what's written on paper.

ditto companies claiming to be flexible and generally considerate of staff and being nothing like that!

oh cross post

I haven't worked anywhere that "pregnant people" came up - that must be terrifying!

People use gender because sex is a bit icky, but "gender identity" seems a step further. I wouldn't assume it means anything about the organisation as a whole though, it might just be one woke HR person and no one else paying any attention.

You need to write and complain - they have left out one of the protected characteristics from the Equality Act

Yes, they can't leave out sex entirely. What if you don't consider you have a "gender identity"?

It's interesting they list gender identity and transgender status.

Combine the two and you can work out something useful, like their sex.

If their gender identity is female but their transgender status is trans, they are biologically male.

If you don’t plan to apply, you could write to the director of HR and CEO saying their exclusion of the protected characteristic of sex deterred you from applying because you felt women were not encouraged to apply. You can also point out that their fuckwitted inability to correctly list the EA2010 protected characteristics undermines their credibility as an effectively run organisation, which was another reason not to apply.

I've emailed them. Email below.

If I get a response I will update.

Dear Sir or Madam

I was recently on your careers website and noted your commitment to Equality and Diversity.

Whilst I applaud you going beyond the remit of the Equality Act 2010 in your list of candidates you welcome applications from, adding in categories that are not covered by the Act, such as "gender identity", "transgender status" and "social or economic background" I was very surprised that you had omitted "sex".

As you will be aware, sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 so I am sure this is just an oversight, especially given your commitment to E&D. I am heartened by your extended list but disappointed that sex is not included. As a woman this actually felt a little exclusive which I am sure was not your intention.

You have also excluded the protected characteristic "gender reassignment" although I suppose this is covered by your wording "transgender identity" which is perhaps broader and more inclusive despite not being a protected characteristic under the Act.

Please could you revise your wording to include the protected characteristic of "sex" as per the Equality Act of 2010. The full list of characteristics are provided here in the Equality Act 2010 for your reference.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4

Alternatively, if there is a reason why you feel the Equality Act should not apply, please could you let me know?

Best regards

They're saying they don't discriminate on gender identity i.e. on whether someone says they're man, woman, nonbinary, gender free, other. Employing a man over a better qualified woman would be discriminating on gender identity, as would employing a woman over a transman. A woman over a transwoman would not be discriminating on gender identity as they both supposedly have the same gender identity.

They also don't discriminate on transgender status i.e. whether or not you identify as sitting under the transgender umbrella. So employing a woman over a transwoman would be this kind of discrimination.

I don't think those between them preclude discriminating on sex. You could employ a nonbinary person with male anatomy above a better qualified nonbinary person with female anatomy. They have the same gender identity (nonbinary) and trans status (yes), but not the same sex.

They are also of course saying that they have taken advice from someone who thinks sex means the same as gender identity so putting gender identity instead of sex is clarifying rather than changing the categories. Which is worrying.

I thought the JRF was a social reform foundation that tackled poverty and inequality - although I may be wrong on that. If I am correct, it is hugely important to recognise that female people experience higher levels of poverty because of their sex - because of discrimination but also because they are the ones most likely to take time away from the workplace because of childbirth and child rearing and caring responsibilities, and that this financial inequality lasts their whole lives. That is not something female bodied people identify into or with, it happens because of their sex.

I wish I’d made that point in my email KTara!

Well meaning but sometimes muddled in their thinking just about sums the JRF up. Will be interesting to see what they reply.

I worked there for a while. It was a weird environment. I didn’t like it at all. It was a long time ago though, and the people I worked with have moved on. Don’t want to say more in case I out myself.

Oh, thirdfiddle, it’s late and you have made my head hurt.

I think your email sticks to the point catgirl which is important.

I think you should apply, and if you get an interview you should mention how you noticed the error on their website, and the point KT made about inequality being largely down to the (female) sex someone was born.
They might be hugely impressed, then you'll get the job and be able to challenge all the sexist crap coming from Stonewall.

(Am too much of an optimist?..)

I work at the JRF - I've been here 6 weeks now. At no point during the application process did I feel that I couldn't apply or work here because I am a woman. I feel that I was judged purely on my experience and my ability to do the job.

I work at the JRF - I've been here 6 weeks now. At no point during the application process did I feel that I couldn't apply or work here because I am a woman. I feel that I was judged purely on my experience and my ability to do the job

Well that's just great.

However the point is that they are publicly displaying that they are not inclusive of women.

Are they? Where does it explicitly say "we are not inclusive of women"? You could argue they are not inclusive of employing men either as it says pregnancy or maternity rather than pregnancy or parenthood.

I agree it's clumsily worded though.