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

And if someone was appointed to a role where it was important for the person to be a woman, and stated, but ignored by both the candidate and the employer, then maybe there could / should be no claim if person subsequently was to be removed?

@BellaAmorosa 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?

Yes his sex is the reason he is unsuitable.

The bottom line is they were wrong to have employed him. However, having employed him they have then unlawfully dismissed him because of his sex, so he has a valid claim.

Jason could not ask for reinstatement but would be compensated accordingly.

GORs should be made clear in the advert/job description. They are very much post/role specific. You can’t add a GRO at a later stage in the recruitment process or during employment, it just isn’t fair.

In the case of Edinburgh Rape Crisis I believe they used legal sex rather than biological sex as the GOR. This is what led to the legal cases.

Retirement complex - yes it would be age discrimination. However, I am not sure legally they can undo the sale etc.

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?
No, disability is an example of where you can be dismissed because you are unable to do the job and reasonable adjustments can’t be made or are not sufficient.

The key is making sure the job description, advert etc are correct then recruiting the right person.

You can advertise for a white, female actor aged 70+ to play HM Queen Elizabeth II. That would be legal, but if you don’t put the criteria in the advert and recruit a black male 20 year old actor you can’t turn round and go oh no you are not right we are sacking you without it being sex, race, age discrimination.

It could be argued that the transparent and fair recruitment process being circumvented so her special friend could get the job meant that applications from groups with Protected Characteristics (disabilities, ethnicity, being female/pregnant) weren't given appropriate consideration and they were therefore illegally discriminated against. There is a real possibility that they are also being taken to Tribunal by candidates who were better qualified/experienced and had one of more other Protected Characteristic but saw the role being given to a young, fit, white male because he had a friend influencing the panel.

There could also be (should in my opinion) be a requirement to state that attempting to influence panel members or failing to disclose a personal relationship will lead to a position being withdrawn. I've always had to declare any connections to recruiters at application stage.

It looks as though they thought this would avoid a nasty, protracted and extremely expensive process of going for the woman responsible for his hiring (inevitably ending with a massive payoff due to her role being exceptionally well paid), but she's had/decided to back off from supporting him and he's not taking the rejection lightly - as well he might when he's clearly put a lot of work into cultivating this special friendship over recent years. 🤔

@NeverDropYourMooncup you are absolutely correct potential applicants may have been discriminated against.

There are so many things they did incorrectly/poorly that it was completely unprofessional.

There is a real possibility that they are also being taken to Tribunal by candidates who were better qualified/experienced and had one of more other Protected Characteristic but saw the role being given to a young, fit, white male because he had a friend influencing the panel.

Is this grounds for a discrimination claim? I didn't think nepotism was unlawful (though, obviously, unethical and undesirable in a public role).

It's possible - it's not the nepotism, it's the discounting of potentially better candidates.

So why did you discount this lady who has direct experience in support work with domestic violence, sexual health and speaks three community languages?

'She wasn't a good fit'

So a fully able-bodied, young, white male with no direct experience was somebody you felt would fit in better with the team than a woman of a minority ethnicity and direct experience?

'Oh yes, he'd have no problem talking about vulval soreness to teenage girls.'

So what exactly was wrong with her?

'He's absolutely fantastic, everybody loves him, it's time we had men talking about clots, clitoral pain and diarrhoea to children. He's got 2 lovely girls, you know'. She just wasn't as

...wasn't as, well, lovely as he is.

You seemed to indicate that candidates might have a case because the hiree was a friend of someone with influence as though that were the reason for him being employed over better qualified candidates. Which surprised me.

But are you actually saying that it's not about the hiree being a friend, but rather that they might have indicated to candidates that they hired him because he was a man and the candidates weren't (even if it was to cover up that he was a friend)?

Obviously the whole thing was a fuck up from when they started to craft the job description! This is an aside, I'm just trying to understand where the lines are for employment tribunals.

It could be all of those resulting in other candidates being discriminated against when she was so intent on her friend being employed.

It's as messy as any other part of it.

They potentially picked somebody white over anybody not, somebody able bodied over anybody not, somebody male over anybody not, somebody without direct lived experience over anybody not. That's not evidence of compliance with recruiting or discrimination laws.

Were there any other candidates? I thought part of the issue with the recruitment was the post had an incredible short closing date and was not advertised beyond the in-house job vacancy website.

That would imply that anyone who hired their white wife (to use a stereotype based on historical practice) to be their secretary would be able to be sued for discrimination if a black candidate with better qualifications applied.

I was under the impression that the balance of probabilities had to lie with the reason for hiring being on the basis of the protected characteristic - not simply a distinction on paper between a successful and an unsuccessful candidate.

Yup. They could.

I am honk there were at least three FOIs requesting details of other candidates and all the FOIs were denied.
I feel pretty sure that this will be settled out of court one way or another and those interesting little details will never be revealed.
Sadly. 🙁

I am honk

I think that was meant to say "I think" !

Hello honk

I agree, they'll settle and the underside of the rug will get dirtier.

Just thinking - isn't the comparator for a male another male in a sex discrimination case?

No. Discimination occurs when an individual with protected characteristic is treated less favourably than one without. So in this case someone with the protected characteristic of ‘male’ treated less favourably than someone without this ie ‘female’.

I think you are confusing this with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment where a transwoman - a man with the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ - must not be treated less favourably than a man without this protected characteristic,

Honk! 😁

FOI cannot be used to obtain personal data, or data that could be identifiable, so I am not surprised this failed.

They didn't request personal details but rather the numbers of applicants/interviewees +/- sex of candidates.
But this was deemed to be identifying.

Which could only be the case if you happened to know the one other candidate - if there was another candidate.

"We consider that some of the information you have requested, relating to numbers of applicants and interviewees is exempt from disclosure under Section 38 (1) (b) of FOISA, due to the low numbers involved. This is because it is likely that individuals may be identifiable from the information you have requested and the disclosure of this information would therefore contravene the Data Protection Act (2018) and the UK GDPR."

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/perioddignityyregionalleaddoff

News coverage from the time.

twitter.com/thecourieruk/status/1561742726563270656?s=46

Ooh. Interesting.
I've just seen there are some updates.
Dundee and Angus, who employ the woman who personally chose Jason want to take the hit for legal liability. She must have some good friends there.

"Mr Grant’s lawyers have argued that all of the partnership organisations should be liable for the discrimination alleged.
However, Dundee and Angus College have said that they want to take sole responsibility for defending the claims."

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10579146/male-period-dignity-officer-begins-sex-discrimination-action-after-being-axed/

From the BBC

"The partnership responsible for hiring Mr Grant, which comprised representatives from Dundee and Angus College, Perth College, Dundee Council and Angus Council,

Mr Grant's lawyers have argued that all of the partnership organisations should be liable for the discrimination alleged.
However, Dundee and Angus College have said that they want to take sole responsibility for defending the claims.
The disagreement over who the case will proceed against was the focus of the latest hearing in Dundee.
A decision on this will be made at a later date."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-65347529

That would mean less than five. Numbers less than five are generally not released.

The FOIs were refused because was a very small pool of candidates & it would identify them/ him.
Get the popcorn in for this 😀