Period dignity officer update

[BaileySharp]

They've scrapped the role
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-62807683

Rather than appoint a woman they're just scrapping it

Me, too. It will be fascinating!

Bing bing bing

i knew there was something like that

My understanding was there was more wrong with the recruitment process than just that.

It is an unusual one. 'But for' his sex, would he have been made redundant? Probably not, so a SD claim has legs here I think as its redundancy on the basis of a protected characteristic.

I hope he wins to s how up the stupidity of his employer doing this in the first place

My understanding was there was more wrong with the recruitment process than just that.

Yes, it appears that they didn't follow any kind of robust procurement process, allegedly. If they had they would be less likely to be in this position. I believe as it is, they don't really have a leg to stand on and I imagine they will have to settle.

As a man, he shouldn't have been appointed in the first place, so I'm not sure how it makes sense to complain sex discrimination for being removed from the role. I mean, something is wrong with the whole thing, I just don't know what label to stick on it.

I'm getting a headache just thinking about it. Will be interested to see how the lawyers land - if indeed this even gets to court.

I work in this field so from a professional view, I'd he was made redundant because he was a man, a sex discrimination case may succeed

Whether they should have appointee him in the first case will not be relevant legally. Its the fact that he lost his job and why that will be considered

If you’ve recruited someone who, through your own poor recruitment (or due to a rogue manager recruiting them) turns out to be unqualified for the role, how could you get rid of them? The fault is your, they may have left another job in good faith, but they cannot carry out the role?

Surely it's relatively straightforward to get rid of them so long as you do it in a way which does not discriminate on the basis of one of the protected characteristics.

Ok. But what if the reason they cannot do their job is because of a protected characteristic? Where an exemption applied but you did not use it and recruited wrongly?

I'd say that statute overrides an organisation falling back on the excuse of a faulty recruitment process. Either you discriminate and are liable or you don't.

This case is surely a strong candidate for a settlement..

It jumped out at me too and I was intending to make a similar comment.

You'd say "bye bye " if there wasn't a discrimination reason for getting rid there was you'd either mitigate the reason, eg a disability put in place adjustments, or get the cheque book out.

They made the mistake of hiring a man, and then when the outcry got too hot to handle, they let him go.

It's their fault, and to me, absolutely looks like sex discrimination, but only because they hired him in the first place without understanding, or taking responsibility, for how untenable it would be.

I sincerely hope that this comes out in court, and that they, and everyone else, understands that they absolutely could've just hired a woman, and that wouldn't have been sex discrimination.

They made the mistake of hiring a man, and then when the outcry got too hot to handle, they let him go.

Oh, I disagree.

They made the mistake of enabling the appointment of the manager's very special young male friend by not paying heed to due recruitment processes or the thoughts, feelings or safety of girls and women.

So if a film production about Martin Luther King had a rogue recruiter who recruited a white actor for the lead role. Is there any legal way to say ‘this was clearly a mistake’ and remove him from that role without it being illegal discrimination (as opposed to legal discrimination)? Are they stuck with a white Martin Luther King?

I'd say no. The time to make that decision was before appointment, not after. It'd be cheque book time although of course no one has to settle, even for a high offer.

But the saga continues. Jason Grant wants to sue the partnership on the grounds of sex discrimination.

That's a very acute precis.

Which would make it seem that the organisation screwed up in appointing properly, and therefore the post not working out is their fault, not the person they employed, which means yes they're going to have to pay him for unfair dismissal.

Lesson to them: recruit properly. And don't muck your employees about by making really stupid decisions you regret and want to undo five minutes later.

I think the problem will be the reporting afterwards. I expect the Guardian, BBC etc will report it as simply “it’s sex discrimination to bar a man from being a period officer” rather than explaining about the exceptions which could have been applied in advance but weren’t.

The really unfathomable part is that having appointed a man to the job, having not advertised the vacancy properly (surely minimum 3 weeks is typical unless there is great urgency?), having appointed someone with a pre-existing relationship with the recruiting manager, what would possess you to then run around doing press releases and photo ops on the subject?

There's courting controversy and then there's squaring up to controversy shouting "who wants a bit of me?".

Maybe someone set it up to get revenge for something. It's the only explanation. If so, well played.

I knew the sex discrimination card would get played. Was only a matter of time.

IANAL. I have a problem with a sex discrimination claim. Please, please somebody explain it to me. I would have said he has a cast-iron claim on other grounds but not sex discrimination. He was dismissed because of the public outcry about him being a man, therefore unsuitable. The reason he was unsuitable for the job was because he was a man - that's what I assume is accepted by saying the partnership could have used the exemption.
If this is sex discrimination, is it sex discrimination for the family of a disabled woman who needs intimate care to sack a male carer who they took on without first consulting her? What if it was the council, if that makes any difference.
If I'm failing to understand something, please explain it to me.

@Namechangeforthis88
I know! Tin-eared, or what?

@BellaAmorosa it is sex discrimination because had he been a woman he would not have been removed. The outcry was because he was a man I.e. his sex.

As pp have said it should have been advertised with a Genuine Occupational Requirement to be female.

Yes, it would be sex discrimination if a family recruited a male carer and the disabled female objected and their contract was terminated on that basis.

A council would be smarter, they would redeploy on some other basis or tell the disabled person it’s a male carer or no one. Not right but I can imagine it happens.

Thanks, @Diamondsmile
I find that extraordinary. Is that the same as saying that they could have sacked him if he was unsuitable for the role for any other reason, but not for the reason of being a man? The whole shambles is their fault of course, he should be compensated for being messed around. But in this case and in the carer example, there is an implication that the employer was/would be wrong to dismiss the man, whereas I think they were/would be wrong to employ him. Would Jason - theoretically - be able to insist on being reinstated? I presume the partnership axed the role to try to evade this outcome.

So it wouldn't be unfair sex discrimination to appoint and then dismiss a man if you informed all potential applicants about a General Occupational Requirement, but it is unfair if you appoint and then dismiss, but hadn't informed them of a GOR? (I know it seems barely credible that a male would be apply and be appointed even if a GOR was advertised, but this did happen at Edinburgh Rape Crisis.) Does the GOR only exist for a job, or type of job, if the employer asserts it? (Genuine question, just seeking clarity.) If sex discrimination in a particular situation is permitted, then whether or not the employee knows about a GOR or the employer relies on it is a technicality. Compensation would still be due, but not for unfair sex discrimination, surely?

How about this situation - a retirement complex only allows over-60s to live there. If by some bungling a 55-year-old gets a flat, and then the sale/rental agreement is voided (all monies returned), could the 50-year old claim they had been the victim of unfair age-related discrimination?

Is it the case that you can never be fairly dismissed on the basis of a protected characteristic even if the characteristic is the reason why you are unable to do or are unsuitable for the job?