Positive discrimination

[respectmysex]

Person specification

We are taking positive action to encourage applications from people of colour (PoC) and other racially minoritised communities, trans, non-binary and/or older people (aged 50+), to improve the representation of colleagues from these communities in our team.

I've seen a job advert on LinkedIn in with the above. Is this legal? As a disabled 40-something white bi woman from a WC background, I thought I already ticked enough diversity boxes.

They're not saying they are doing positive discrimination. They are taking action to encourage applications from people with various backgrounds. Not saying that they will prioritise those applications.

I've seen this sort of thing a lot - "encouraging" is fine (although a bit revealing which PCs they leave out), it's only a potential legal issue if they only accept applications from these people.

I think it's a good thing to say in the ad, as long as applicants are treated on their own merits.

umm I wouldn't have thought it'd stand up in court but at this stage I really couldn't say. There's a general principle that you can say you want x where there is a good and reasonable reason for the candidate to be x. and there is a general principle that 'x are underrepresented and are therefore encouraged to apply' is ok. I can't imagine them having robust statistics to work from though.

This

Positive action is legal. Positive discrimination is not. This is positive action which is covered in the Equality Act 2010

"Trans" isn't in the Equality Act, nor is "non-binary". "Race" is but "racially minoritised" is not and is a political US import. So no I don't think the whole thing is compliant with UK law.

What's the difference between positive action and discrimination? Do they need to be actually taking some positive actions to encourage people from their target group to apply? Or is merely stating it in the job advert sufficient?

This job has popped up in my feed because is one I'm qualified for/experienced etc and located near me. I'm looking for a new role at the moment and have never seen anything worded quite like this before.

Apply then. The wording in an ad may or may not accurately reflect what a company/institution is like in practice.

My employer states that if a candidate fulfils all the essential requirements (eg qualification/particular experience) of the job spec and have a protected characteristic then they are guaranteed an interview. I think this is a reasonable approach.

Positive action is removing barriers that discourage some people from applying. Positive discrimination is actively discriminating against some applications due to their characteristics and is illegal.

Examples of positive action might be widening where you advertise a position so that more applicants of colour might apply, or considering whether a degree is needed for jobs that don't directly use one and updating criteria accordingly.

Everyone has protected characteristics as everyone has a race and a sex.

And the Supreme Court in the US is widely expected to rule affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional in the very near future.

I think the wording of this ad makes it very clear I'm not welcome.

How are you not welcome just because they're trying to encourage others to apply too?!
It doesn't mean you aren't to apply, I read it as you're perfectly welcome to as well!

This. A white male has various protected characteristics:

Sex
race
Age
Sexual orientation
etc

What the hell is non binary, and is saying you are , enough to get you an interview?

We used to do this but specified candidates with a disability, but I can't see the point of including all protected characteristics which is everyone.
You should apply OP if you like the look of the job. We rarely got any applications that qualified anyway. Your chance is exactly the same as if the ad hadn't included that bit.

It is saying: If you thought you won't stand a chance because you are over 50, trans, etc then please don't think that. You stand as much chance as any other applicant.

What reasonable adjustments, or additional costs to the employer, would any of those groups require? Wonder why disability isn’t included? Does the company already have a broad representation of various physical or other disabilities? Ones that might incur costs for the employer to make reasonable adjustments. But it is a positive to encourage unrepresented groups to apply, this should be encouraged but why that particular selection? Unless it’s, as I wondered, because the company hasn’t got employees from these groups?

I've just looked further at the company website and found the profiles for current senior staff. Out of 14, the 3 most senior are people of colour, all have pronouns listed in their bio and 3 are they/them. Judging from their profile photos, 1 is trans. I don't think PoC trans and non-binary are under represented groups at the company, based on these profiles. All of them look young though, so I can see why they would want to attract older candidates.

@respectmysex the fact that there are 3 people of colour doesn't mean that they aren't under represented..
Unless you have the wage data by demographic you can't possibly know this.

For example they could be the only 3 people of colour in the whole company if 2000 employees....

Not sure what this has to do with Feminism. Is it a feminist issue? Race issue? Work?

No it does not. You are choosing to see it that way.

⬆️ This. It’s making people who aren’t represented in the organisation feel welcome rather than saying others are unwelcome. It’s not uncommon and by itself doesn’t change under- representation as people still need to be appointed on merit.

You feel how you feel, but there’s nothing unlawful or unethical about it. If you want the job apply but maybe you won’t enjoy the role if the culture and values of the organisation aren’t a fit for you.