Wording of Equality Act help?

[LaLoba]

I’m hoping someone can point me in the direction of any thread about wording to point out to an organisation that they aren’t adhering to the Equality Act.

Without giving possible identifying info, I have a skill that’s not unusual, but is unexpected for someone with my chronic illness to do. The big charity for my condition are interested in me doing some work for them, and have mentioned that I’d need to agree to their safeguarding and inclusion terms.

So I looked up their DEI statement, and of course it’s got Stonewall written all over it, no mention of sex, only gender. I’ll be letting them know that’s a hard no for me, and I could do with pointers on the wording etc. I want to come across politely, but firmly factual.

I know there have been numerous threads on this, and don’t want to ask people to repeat their work, so if anyone can give me a pointer to a relevant thread that would be really helpful!

I’m sure others can point you to more user-friendly resources but this is a link to the Act itself. Section 4 lists the relevant protected characteristics, and the subsequent sections say a bit more about each characteristic. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/1

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010

I dont know for sure, but I dont think DEI statements are necessarily linked to the EA.

The EA is about ensuring people within the protected characteristic groups aren't discriminated against eg:

The only legal requirement on an employer as regards equality is to:

• ensure they comply with equal pay legislation i.e. they pay men and women the same for doing the same (or equivalent) jobs;
• they do not discriminate against job applicants or staff when it comes to benefits, promotion and other workplace matters;
• do all they reasonably can to prevent discrimination and harassment of staff in the workplace by others (this is cultural and comes from having the right policies in place, giving adequate training, and demonstrating strong leadership).

Although it is not a strict legal requirement i.e. there is no direct penalty for not having one, all employers are likely to have an equality and diversity policy in their staff handbook, as a minimum.

Often, this goes no further than simply explaining what unlawful discrimination and harassment is, stating that the employer will not tolerate it and making it clear that anyone who discriminates or harasses in the workplace may be dismissed. Even a basic policy can help an employer defend an unfair dismissal or discrimination claim.
https://www.springhouselaw.com/knowledge-hub/employment-contracts-and-staff-handbooks/what-are-the-legal-requirements-for-equality-and-diversity-in-the-workplace

There's probably a better explanation than this but it is late at night.

DEIs are more about trying to present a shared workplace culture, and how Stonewall made an absolutely fortune training people to conform to Stonewall's culture. Hence talking about organisations that have been Stonewalled.

So if the DEI you are talking about contradicts the EA that is easy enough to point out they dont know the law.

But if it is the tone of the DEI with extra spangly bits and rainbow aspirations that you dont like, you will just have to tell them your work aspirations dont fit into the statement they are making about themselves!

IMO

@IwantToRetire
‘So if the DEI you are talking about contradicts the EA that is easy enough to point out they dont know the law.’

It does. And they want me to agree to a policy that doesn’t protect women.
I’m not sure I’ve been clear: I was hoping for direction to one of the threads I’ve seen here with suggestions for how to word my response to the organisation about why misrepresentation of the EA is an issue.

I’ve seen a lot of threads on this subject and was trying to find one, rather than discussion of the issues, as I’m chronically exhausted and writing my response to the organisation is a chore I could do without, but I think it’s important they know why.

Hi LaLoba

Rereading your OP, I see it’s the charity’s safeguarding policy and the charity’s inclusion policy which you have concerns about.

The EA 2010 is focused on direct and indirect discrimination and also on harassment and victimisation. It covers employment, and the provision of goods and services.

Without having seen the wording of the two policies which cause you concern, if your angle is compliance with EA 2010, then the point to focus on would be the way in which the policy might lead to discrimination against users with a relevant EA 2010 protected characteristic when accessing the charity’s services.

Or might lead to discrimination against, or harassment of, the charity’s employees and volunteers on that basis.

If your concern is that the policy says “here are the EA 2010 protected characteristics” and then gets them wrong, that’s a much more straightforward one-liner pointing out that the list is incorrect.

But you mention that their policy doesn’t protect women. If it’s the safeguarding policy which is the greatest concern to you, you might be better off starting a thread with safeguarding in the title to make it easier for FWR regulars with safeguarding expertise to spot it.

The advanced search function on here is beyond me so I can’t help with that, sorry.

There are at least two possible issues here.

First, does the policy mis-state the law, for example by listing protected characteristics but not including sex? If so, ask them to correct it by referring to the relevant part of the EA.

Although note that there's nothing to stop organizations adding other categories that they wish to protect so long as that doesn't conflict with their legal obligations.

Second, does it contradict the law by requiring the organisation to do things that would be contrary to the EA, or preventing them from doing things that are required by the EA? If so, then you should figure out which actions are affected and list them.

This is probably not going to be the slam-dunk that you're hoping for though. The EA requirements are relatively light.

After a night’s sleep I think I have it, fairly simply:
’All documents relating to equality, in relation to employment and service users, omit sex when listing protected characteristics. As a woman, with a duty to my service users, who are primarily women, I cannot work for your organisation. ‘

Any tips on improving that would be gratefully received.
Apologies for any confusion, morning brain is sharper than my pm brain.

@simmertime
This is probably not going to be the slam-dunk that you're hoping for though.

I’m not hoping for a slam dunk. I just want to coherently explain why I’m not going to work for them.

I'll have a look to see if I can find some threads. Although from memory they turned into long discussions too, so you'll have a lot to wade through.

I always thought short and concise was best - like your wording but including a reference to the EA.

Yes, that's very clear and straightforward. But leaping immediately to not working for them seems a bit precipitate? Couldn't you say:

"Reading your policy documents on equality, the protected characteristics of "sex" and "gender reassignment" are consistently.omitted. The full list of characteristics protected by law is [...]
I'd be grateful if you could fix these omissions and let.me know when your policies have been corrected."

They’re a huge organisation, and I’m dealing with a regional head - they won’t be changing their policies for me. Having trawled through all of the policies I could find and seen the consistent omission, I really don’t want to work for them.
What I do is a very part time way to give myself purpose and help others stay healthy . I’m fortunate not to be financially dependent on it, and don’t need to take on work which will cause me unnecessary stresses.

I'd probably go with something like.

'Many thanks for the offer, and for the need to agree with Safeguarding and Inclusion terms. I of course would always agree to work within the law in terms of Safeguarding and Inclusion.

However, as a Disabled Female [add in any additional protected characteristics] with many years of lived experience, I've never worked for an organisation that doesn't protect people with characteristics as defined within the Equality Act and so therefore I cannot take the risk of accepting the terms that you mention as they do not meet the legal requirements of organisations working within the UK'.

This is harder than I thought!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4877906-equality-act-wording-at-work-aibu

Found this template letter
https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/11/sex-is-a-protected-characteristic/

via the Small Acts of Rebellion thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3691991-small-acts-of-rebellion

Without giving possible identifying info, I have a skill that’s not unusual, but is unexpected for someone with my chronic illness to do

Obviously not expecting to find out, but this has got me wondering. Stilt walker? Unicycling? Are you a contortionist?

In answer to your post I thought your wording is good but would add some of@simmertime suggestions. Although you don't want to work for them under these circumstances I don't think I would go all in on that straight away, I'd start with "I was slightly concerned that...." Because If you start with "I don't want to work for you because..." They have no incentive to engage, so I'd want to get their exact position clarified, make them wriggle a bit. It might not change the outcome for you but you may not be the first or last to point out that women matter.

Contact Sex Matters.

Oh brill! This is the reasoning I had in my foggy head, but couldn’t articulate, thank you.

Thanks to all for your comments, I was at the stage of knowing why but not knowing how to get it across in a way that is hard to discredit - your comments have helped me get my thoughts together, much appreciated!

@CobwebCorner ‘Obviously not expecting to find out, but this has got me wondering. Stilt walker? Unicycling? Are you a contortionist?’

😂 I wish it was that entertaining!