Male period poverty tsar cleared to take legal action v 4 public bodies

[Imnobody4]

This will be interesting, I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/db1fa9cc-3abe-11ee-b7c0-8b22dcb64950?shareToken=1263a7db1020571e92b5f42a2924dc81

Jason Grant, a former personal trainer, was hired as period dignity officer for the Tayside region in August last year. The post was meant to involve discussing sanitary products in schools and colleges with students.

However the £35,000-a-year role was abolished weeks later after claims that “threats and abuse” had been levelled towards individuals involved in the project.

"It paves the way for a lengthy hearing, possibly lasting several weeks and featuring a significant number of witnesses."

I can't wait. Several weeks will require extra supplies of popcorn. Better add in a few beers.

Interesting comment from Ian Blackford:

"Ian Blackford MP, then the SNP group leader at Westminster, also criticised Grant’s appointment. “It would be far better that women are in these posts than anyone else,” he said."

I could be wrong but I thought he was a keen support if the SNP self ID proposals and yet there he was supporting women only roles? Maybe someone who knows better will come along to explain.

Here's the oti thread which contains much Mumsnet sleuthing regarding his appointment.

Dundee man leads fight against period poverty
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4612399-dundee-man-leads-fight-against-period-poverty

I think he does have a leg to stand on actually. He was discriminated against because he was male. The recruiters should have been sensible and made it an occupational requirement that the incumbent had to be female. They didn’t. That’s on them, not him. He applied for and was appointed onto a job he was on paper entitled to do. His motives for applying are not that relevant. If they’d had a bit of nouse to have recruited and advertised properly the situation would have been avoided. I hope he wins and wins big. It’s the only way some of these stupid organisations will learn.

Yes, he was entitled to apply, although I'm unconvinced he was properly experienced and qualified for the role.

However, the hiring panel was also 'entitled' if not beholden to make this a woman-only post, and by not doing so, they have been immensely dim and selfish. Putting the comfort and safety of woman and girls far behind their own shiny gold trans ally badges.

I really hope this case spells out the rights of women and girls, in the process of exploring what went wrong.

IE that it's entirely appropriate that some roles are sex based, and should remain so, and that this recruitment was badly handled.

Absolutely. It’s on them, not him.

I am not sure it was about “woke credentials “ in this case though.
There have been suggestions that the role was largely created for him and handed to him on a platter by the woman in charge of hiring who was not unknown to him.
If that is the case it will be fun watching it all come out

Yes, true. I know of some of the people involved- Dundee isn't the biggest place and the creative sector is quite a tight network - and I can't imagine how they're going to spin this really.

He was entitled to apply for the role as it was advertised. The role should have been exempt under the Equality Act and wasn’t. I am intrigued there’s a debate about who his employer actually was - surely it’s whoever was on his actual employment contract, but I guess we will see how that plays out. I think if it’s been as badly handled as it looks, then he will win. How much is anyone’s guess - I too am buying popcorn for this one! It’s been badly managed all round as far as I can see and frankly an embarrassment for all involved!

Someone familiar with Scottish politics will have a better understanding of this, so so correct me if I’m wrong. I seem to remember around the time Kate (arghh forgotten her surname) was being hammered about her religious beliefs re the leadership election, someone pointed out that Ian Blackford was a member of the same church and that had never been seen as an issue. What with him being a man and all.

Kate Forbes.

Of course! Thank you.

Ah. Thank you. Interesting.

I am intrigued there’s a debate about who his employer actually was - surely it’s whoever was on his actual employment contract, but I guess we will see how that plays out.

I think the issue is that one particular person at Dundee College is alleged to have pushed for him to get the job so the other parties to his engagement wanted to back out "nothing to do with us" but now they also have to take responsibility.
Not quite sure why Dundee College seems to have been keen to take the rap and let them off the hook. No doubt interesting details will be revealed.

I do so hope they don't settle out of court and deprive us all of the entertainment.

There is at least one woman who felt she was overlooked and has a grievance about the hiring of this man. I hope she puts in a claim too. Perhaps she's waiting for the result of this before she acts. Or more likely she doesn't want to risk it affecting future applications so is just sucking it up. I can see it might be a tricky decision but it's a shame.

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/9448378/scots-college-period-dignity-role-employee/

But if an employer doesn't think things through and appoints a candidate of the wrong sex for a role where sex obviously matters, they should take responsibility for their error.

If the job was open to everyone (when it obviously shouldn't have been), it's not the fault of the people applying that one of them was appointed.

Of course he never should have been considered, but that's on the employer who should have realised that sex sometimes matters and who should have made it clear that it matters for this particular role from the outset.

The fact the employer thought that biology isn't relevant to periods until the general public pointed it out to them is utterly bizarre, so it will be interesting to hear their response.

But if an employer doesn't think things through and appoints a candidate of the wrong sex for a role where sex obviously matters, they should take responsibility for their error.

If he sues them and wins, so be it. I guess a few tens of thousands more down the gurgler is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. My sympathy for him is still nil.

I don’t have any sympathy either, but the only way these idiot employers will wake up is when they get heavily hit in the pocket. For that reason alone, I hope he wins big.

Was it advertised?

I thought the whole issue was it wasntadvertised and was hidden away for the reason that they already had him lined up for the role.

This is pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if there was a faction that wanted the job to go to a man, any man to....queer periods. To make it not something that only concerns women and girls. It wouldn't surprise me if an ideology was mixed up with this. Possibly why the role wasn't restricted to women in the first place.

It was advertised @AlisonDonut I downloaded the job description at the time. Whether they ever intended to have a full and proper interview process seems to be another matter.

I don't agree that it's all on them. Unless he has qualifications in a closely-related health care field, he shouldn't have gone for this role in the first place. The fact that he is now taking legal action against them for a position that was questionable to give him in the first place is telling of his character.

Wasn't he a personal trainer or something?

I remember people surprised as it had appeared on the wrong section of the jobs pages, IE it may have been 'advertised' but just in a completely different place than it would normally have been.

@AlisonDonut he was a former tobacco salesman turned personal trainer, so clearly qualified 🙄