Sacked worker sues Environment Agency over ‘feminist agenda’

[oviraptor21]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/487240d8-22f7-11ed-83fa-560ae4fda953?shareToken=3debce21ff73514632c967ae2d85b36e

"Legge, who worked at the quango for 16 years, maintains that feminism is a belief system to which he does not adhere.
"
"He has brought a discrimination claim against the agency, in which he alleges that his bosses were biased against him because of his philosophical belief. He has also claimed sex discrimination and unfair dismissal."

Will be interesting to see which way this one goes.

That could be a very interesting case with implications for employers promoting other belief systems, like critical race theory and gender identity theory

Interesting, though there are several things going on there.
Isn't it a matter of following law to redress a sex bias, rather than acting unlawfully to favour women and disadvantage men?

No one likes overt "positive discrimination" and so it just shouldn't be a thing. He shouldn't be asked to discriminate purely on the basis of sex. His objection that he wasn't promoted and that he was the best candidate will be a matter of opinion I'm sure.

He has a claim but not because feminism is a belief system (it's not).
It would have been sex discrimination though.
Feminism is a movement, for feminism to be a belief system the need for feminism would have to be imagined, women would not be at a disadvantage for their role in reproduction, they would not be exploited for their reproductive ability and for mens gratification. MVAW would have to be imagined, rape of women would have to be at the same levels as rape of men. How can a movement that is a reaction to inequality which does exist be a belief system?
Promoting women over men is not feminism though, it's discrimination.

If a judge has ordered a full tribunal then that means his argument might have done validity. I think positive discrimination is damaging.
Does this mean his employer will have to prove he was 'moonlighting' during office hours and that other employees haven't retained their jobs for similar behaviour?
And if his job was to select the best candidate, then that means trusting his choice and not undermining it? How do you prove best candidate? Two people can have identical qualifications and experience but one just interviews better.

He sounds like a typical misogynist to me. It would not surprise me that he automatically thought men were the better candidates simply because they were men.

I was particularly interested in this part - the idea that feminism is a belief system and what the arguments for that would be.

I'm not familiar with regulations around positive discrimination. Don't many firms have targets in terms of percentage of women/BAME etc at particular levels? Would it be possible to achieve these without positive discrimination in some cases or is it perhaps only where there are two or more "equal" candidates then the minority candidate is chosen? Universities for example seem to be operating some mechanisms to promote more inclusion.

The whole premise is like one of those insta posts. How do I say I’m misogynistic without saying I’m misogynistic?

Thanks for sharing that! Sounds like a really interesting case. I hope we can get all the details during the full hearing.

I'm curious to know the exact interview process. And what the wording and scoring was about....

He told the tribunal that later that year agency staff had used an interviewing process where the wording and scoring adopted “was biased in favour of women over men in an attempt to positively discriminate in respect of women candidates”.

I personally disagree with positive discrimination. There are lots of objective and subjective factors considered when someone is hired for a role. I sincerely hope I have never been a 'diversity tickbox' based on my skin colour or sex, but rather because the interview panel felt that on balance I was the best person for the job.

That is interesting. What is HIS philosophical belief, or is an absence of 'belief' in Feminism equal to a belief?

Don't many firms have targets in terms of percentage of women/BAME etc at particular levels? Would it be possible to achieve these without positive discrimination in some cases or is it perhaps only where there are two or more "equal" candidates then the minority candidate is chosen?

Usually these targets centre on encouraging the minority group to apply, and on avoiding unconscious bias in shortlisting and interviewing, rather than positive discrimination.

I've been through the recruitment process with the Environment Agency, the interview process is based on competency questions and you get graded for them so he may well be the most qualified or most experienced on paper but if he could not answer the questions appropriately then he wasn't going to get the promotion.

Saying that, all of the info I've had through from the EA has been about encouraging employees to be their true selves and challenging inequalities. There is a slight gender/sex pay gap which they are working to close too as well as diversifying senior positions which are largely held by white men.

surely no one wants to be a diversity hire?

minimising bias by taking names/ages etc off of applications is a good thing, actively weighting test scores to benefit certain groups is not.

will be interested to see how this shakes out (especially in his definition of feminism, which as we know is often unrecognisable to the way we see it on FWR).

in general it’s good to get this stuff properly aired out at a tribunal - sadly the process isn’t accessible for the majority which is really worrying for anyone with an interest in fairness and accountability.

I'm so intrigued as to an interviewing process where the wording and scoring adopted was biased in favour of women looks like.

Me too!

I vaguely recall that some grammar school entry tests have been declared as favourable to either boys or girls in the past so I’m wondering if it’s similar? I think that was around the verbal/non verbal reasoning parts of the paper but I will have to look it up…

Though the best person for the job may well be someone that broadens the diversity of the workforce. A diverse workforce is generally a strength, not just a box ticking exercise.

This was the feeling I got, though that could be the fault of The Times, or of my own bias.

It looks like one of those cases where the removal of privilege feels like oppression.

Human sex is fixed. That is a fact, not a belief system based upon something unprovable. Yet it had to be presented as a belief in order to legally protect Maya's right to state that fact.

If the immutability of sex is a belief, feminism could equally be presented as a belief.

Ah yeah I get what you're saying.
Anything can be a belief.

Does that mean he has to first have it acknowledged in law as a belief like Maya did?
Or would he have to get his MRA belief recognised in law to have been discriminated against on the grounds of belief?

Recruitment really isn't this simple best person for the job process. If you're recruiting for a team you need diversity to avoid group think as well as skills and experience. This applies to male candidates in female majority jobs as well.
On paper someone can look good but not able to think outside the box or adapt easily to new practices.
I'm interested to see how recruitment was done - he sounds like he was the only interviewer rather than a panel of varying individuals.
He seems to have an agenda of opposing fairness to women.

He told the tribunal that later that year agency staff had used an interviewing process where the wording and scoring adopted “was biased in favour of women over men in an attempt to positively discriminate in respect of women candidates”.

I hope he is made to show why the previous method didn't favour men seeing as they got the jobs.

I'll be interested in hearing the evidence and arguments for both sides.

I thought positive discrimination was illegal unless it was either for a post with a genuine occupational qualification or for a training position set aside for under represented groups? Otherwise an employer can stipulate when recruiting that they welcome applications from certain groups but can’t actively discriminate in their favour (except in the above cases)?
I’m not 100% certain that’s correct but if it is, then that would probably explain why he’s able to take the case forward.

So he’s happy to claim sex discrimination for himself, but does believe in feminism. (All those pesky feminists pointing out inequality).

I see.

Doesn’t believe (obviously)

I'm guessing it looks like something where everyone is treated equally rather than favouring men but someone who has a bias towards men wouldn't agree.

He's clearly a misogynist dickhead taking advantage of other cases around belief systems.

This isn't quite true. If you have 2 equally qualified candidates you can legally chose the candidate from the under represented group. So if you interviewed a male and female candidate who both score equally well and women are under represented in the role your recruiting for (engineers for example) then you could choose the women over the man because she is a woman.