Work has a ‘Leadership Development Programme’ for Women and Ethnic Minority People

[LaundryLoop]

Right, so I’ll admit that when I’m writing this I’m emotional. I wasn’t sure where else to go to express and check this. I’ve posted and lurked on here for a while under a different username but want to remain completely anonymous so posting this under a new name.

I work for a big company (I’ll stay vague on which one) which has a Leadership Development Programme for Women and Ethnic Minority people. They are grouped together for the purpose of the programme. We’ve been getting communications about this programme recently but it’s been going on for a while I think. After following the Supreme Court clarification closely, I’ve read up a lot about the law in this space and positive action and I don’t understand how this programme can exist. Surely the programme should be for women or ethnic minority people. In my view, women face very specific barriers to career progression which need to be addressed separately. It does a disservice to both groups and they should split them out.

I checked this with ChatGPT (I’m no lawyer) and it seems to be right:
Even if different groups (e.g. women and ethnic minority groups) each have their own evidence of disadvantage and their own proportionate justification, you still cannot lawfully treat them as a single positive action group. The Equality Act 2010 requires that positive action be based on a specific protected characteristic. Combining different characteristics into one undifferentiated group obscures the legal basis for action, risks unlawful discrimination, and fails the test of legal clarity and proportionality under Section 158.

That accurately reflects what I’ve read on here.

So…I raised it. I was immediately shut down and told that I didn’t understand the law and that so long as there is justification which shows systemic disadvantage for those two groups then it’s okay. This morning I was pulled into a room full of men and belittled and spoken down to. I’m writing this having just stopped crying. I was made to feel stupid in front of my manager who I feel already dislikes me for reasons beyond my control and related to gender. I tried to make it clear that I think the programme is a good idea, the groups should just be split out.

Can any legal experts on here confirm if I’m right in this? I would appreciate any advice on what to do next, although I’m not sure I can continue raising concerns in this kind of environment.

Bump

You need to start by not checking with ChatGPT.

Itll take posts like this and repeat them presented as fact. Go and read up on what the equality act actually says.

I have read Section 158, I just needed to check with Chat GPT because they made me feel crazy.

Not a legal expert. I've been on a women's leadership program and absolutely expected it to be a space for women. With training adapted for women (ie gender roles in the work place are alive and well and as you progress it takes quite a bit of effort to get past them). And networking with other women. Ethnic minority or not, but still women. Where does your employer propose sending their ethic minority men?! Sorry to hear you've been made to feel like this but I think this is your employer telling you their position whether you agree or not.

Thanks @ThirdStorm. I agree, this is their position. I’ll need to choose my battles carefully.

The place they intend to send their ethnic minority men is on this programme…with women. They’ve just pushed the two groups together.

If the programme is specifically for ‘women and ethnic minority people’ then any woman and any ethnic minority person can apply. So potentially the course could be 100% White female or 100% male ethnic minorities. Dave from accounts with his blonde hair and blue eyes could cite discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity if his sister Sheila from HR got a place despite not being of an ethnic minority. It’s a shit show!

Based on my understanding of the EqualityAct, what you're arguing seems right, OP, but I don't know if it is or not. You definitely need a lawyer who specialises in this area to answer the question.

I realise this isn't the most useful answer, but wanted to keep the post near the top. I think it's an important question.

ChatGBT makes up nonsense. As the precious poster said - please do not use it to fact-check.

I can't imagine as a white women I would be the best choice of network for an ethic minority man. I'm a nice person don't get me wrong and network with lots of people from a wide range of backgrounds but I have no great understanding or affinity about ethic minority challenges, bias etc that an ethic minority man might face in the workplace as a white women. In your shoes @LaundryLoop I'd refuse my place on the program. Such an oversight on their part.

They could have a leadership development programme as a positive action to increase the participation of women.

They could have a leadership development programme as a positive action to increase the participation of people from ethnic minorities.

If they can show that the same generic leadership development programme meets the needs of both these groups then I can see no legal reason why they must be kept separate. E.g. there could be one leadership development programme that is open to everyone but they could reserve a certain number of places for women as a positive action, and separately reserve a certain number of places for people from ethnic minorities as a separate positive action IYSWIM.

The question is, would a generic programme be effective for each of the two groups? Looking at each group separately, is the programme a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?

IANAL though and from what I understand this is a largely untested area of law.

Whether you are correct or not, you shouldn't be treated badly for raising this. That is unlawful victimisation.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/27

Hi @LaundryLoop

Im sorry you’ve had such a rough day. It’s crap.

I too think the area of law is untested but objectively it is a pretty stupid approach in my opinion. Just lump everyone apart from the white men together….. it’s very othering….

What is annoying you about the approach? What outcome do you want?

This morning I was pulled into a room full of men and belittled and spoken down to.

This here is precisely why a women in leadership programme might be useful! Why else do they think women are held back if not by the institutional and systematic misogyny as perpetuared by men and male led institutions?

I'd imagine it might be so much harder to talk about these issues in a room including men. Just as it might be really hard for a person of colour to talk about the institutional racism that is holding them back when there are white people (who they might like and value as colleagues) in the room.

This makes sense but the question arises in which group does a woman who is an ethnic minority get added into?

For professional reasons, I can say with knowledge of leadership programmes that those that are most effective separate these two groups. Rather than you talking directly to HR, how about gathering a group of women and a group of ethnic minority people who want to sign up, gather evidence and examples of why two groups would work better than one, and set up a meeting with two people from HR to talk through the issues? Delegates and HR want the same thing after all: a successful leadership programme.

There is info about this on the EHRC web site, and thanks to chatGPT they found the quote.

But for the life of me I cant find it on the EHRC website. (Naughty chatGPT for not siting source.)

So it is legal to have positive "action" ie training for women to help them become part of a male dominated area of work. Similarly for race.

But in the same way as the EHRC talks about how discrimination against women will relate to their lived realilty, it doesn't then try and say how people from Black and Minority Groups are discriminated against is in the same way as women!

That's why there are separate categories of Protected Characteristics and not everyone lumped in together.

So when adopting a plan of Positive Action this should be tailored to the protected characteristic.

This is just typical male management style. They dont understand. They dont care. Because they know they have the power to bully people.

I haven't time now, but maybe somebody can find the quotes about this on the EHRC web site. If not will try and hunt later.

(I did find one from quite a few years ago, but I am sure there is an updated version.)

Should have included that for instance in targeting women they should consider, or accept that whatever training etc., is offered should be by a women.

Thank you everyone for your responses. I appreciate the support and needed it today.

To answer @YouCantProveIt question- what I find annoying (and a bit offensive) is that the reason these initiatives exist should be to support these groups effectively because of the very specific barriers they face. I, as a white woman, can’t relate to experiences of racism. A black man wouldn’t be able to relate to my experiences of misogyny. We face very different barriers at work, and I think grouping them together is lazy and won’t deliver on the aims.

Also, I just didn’t think it was in line with the Equality Act, and I’m sick of the creative interpretation of the law once again disadvantaging women AND ethnic minority groups.

The outcome I’d like to see is two separate programmes, although @Justme56 raises a good point around where ethnic minority women would go.

It sounds like a 2 for the price of 1 virtue signalling exercise, or it might come under the heading 'intersectionality', the real bus that the all purpose 'feminist' threw women's right's under.

I’m sure the SC ruling recently said that groups should not cater to two protected characteristics at the same time.

Also, previous experience suggest that informing someone something is wrong gets their back up. They respond better if you send a querie- I’m a bit concerned this might be breaching the SC guidance on protected characteristics. Could we ask the HR department to check whether we’re compliant with that?- tends to work better as it saves face.

They get to go to both because they are doubly disadvantaged!

Applying the logic of the Supreme Court decision:

Once you decide that you have reasonable grounds for single-sex provision, you must exclude all men, not just some men.

That's because, if you don't have grounds to exclude all men, you didn't have reason to exclude any of them to start with.

If the training is not specifically targeted at women, but at under-represented groups one of which is women, it is hard to see grounds for excluding e.g. a disabled, working-class and/or younger man.

I am not a lawyer but this is how I understood the Supreme Court judgement.

This is spades!

If you have two separate courses, one for women, one for ethnic minorities, both open to women in ethnic minorities, that's fine too.

A) Never trust ChatGPT - it hallucinates
B) Go to the trusted sources - EHRC / ACAS
C) Your boss is a wazzock if he gave you a public dressing down for this

Do they also have a leadership programme for staff with disabilities
or are they cherry picking the EA2010 PCs

Combined is probably best initially, but with breakout groups so people can get advice from those most likely to understand THEIR situation

As ChatGP just quotes info already on the internet, it is find to quote it.

But they dont, as i pointed out, always give the link itself.

However, what it does do far quicked than wading through endless results present you with an overview of the information available.

The concept that anyone using an ordinary search engine will be directed to THE source about anything is rubbish, as they filter info based on the slant of the owner of the search engine.

And if you are totally new to an issue how would you know the authoritive source and not be misled about the search engine.

Perhaps you need to understand what AI can be used for is the problem.

ie it can scan and present sources far quick than any individual trudging through pages of search results.

Obviously if you know the authoritive resource on an issue you wouldn't be using chatGP to begin with. You would go direct to that web site.