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.

I think this comes under picking your battles and is a bit of a non event.

If a company has done a review and found a lack of women and ethnic minorities in leadership roles, offering a course to gain confidence in applying/something to put on the CV to help their application isn't doing any harm. I'm assuming there are also courses for everyone? Maybe white men dominate or there is specific funding for applications from minority groups.

Nitpicking that they have to run separate courses will end up with no courses, it might be a small company for a start.

I don't think this is our battle, tbh, if white men want to make a fuss it's up to them.

Go to the trusted sources - EHRC / ACAS

Well as I have already posted on this thread the EHRC info is old and not helpful.

And in fact I have checked ACAS. Their's is more up to date, but sheds absolutely no light on the situation raised in the OP.

But thanks for your post as it confirms what I have just said, if you dont know what you dont know. it is too easy to feel you are being so helpful based on your (limited) personal knowledge, but in fact turns out to be useless.

I used to work for Barclays, who had "Women" as part of their diversity agenda. I did point out (to whatever-the-PC-equivalent of deaf ears is) that women make up 51% of the population and were hardly diverse. The fact they paid them less than the men was the issue - not that there were fewer of them around!

The Women's Network did themselves no further favours when interviewing a world-leading female economist and asking her about her nail varnish.🙄

Admittedly this was 10 years ago, but I felt the industry had a long, long way to go.

How are they going about the training?

Is it possible that the title "Leadership Development Programme for Women and Ethnic Minority people" is for the purpose of applying to the programme which once they have numbers and people in place will they be adjusted according to the needs of the people that have gained access to the programme?

No, it doesn't quote info already online. It has that info in it's training model, which was used to teach it human responses, but quality of the training data has never been verified. It contains more bullshit than actual facts, as the training data also has just about every random social media post in it that you can think of.

Furthermore, these LLM's are trained to give you responses you want to hear, not facts.

@LadyQuackBeth Maybe I am making a big deal of it, buy my company is absolutely massive. I don’t want to say how massive as that will potentially give it away, but they have enough money to do both. It’s a corporate machine. That’s why I’m so annoyed, they have the resources.

The fact is if it is no longer lawful under the Equality Act it shouldn’t be happening.

The way I was shut down and humiliated for raising this today shows how important it is to have a programme just for women, and still have a programme for ethnic minority groups.

I know it’s a joint programme, and the training will be the same as previous years.

So in answer to your question: I doubt it.

It's a virtue signalling exercise OP, like draping pride flags around. They don't really give a flying fuck about women or ethnic minorities but they've got to be seen to tick a box. As you discovered to your cost in the all male meeting.

Information and statutory guidance does not go out of date.

If the EHRC page has not been changed recently, nor has the statutory guidance.

Old laws do not go out of date because they are old.

This page is still the legal position
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/race-discrimination#circumstanceswhenbeingtreateddifferentlyduetoraceislawful

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.

What even is the aim/purpose/nature of the programme? Is it actually for you all to sit down and share experiences, where discussion groups made up of reasonably similar people could enhance the psychological safety? If so, have you checked if they’ve considered that factor in the design of the groups and discussion prompts? Or is it to give everyone training via talks from the front and the delegates won’t be interacting?

Vast difference between lazy design and not meeting its aims well vs breaking the equality act!

It is not illegal to combine characteristics.

A group for disabled women is lawful.
A group for Hindu men is lawful
A group for lesbian over 65s is lawful

To be honest I think some of the modules probably overlap and this is more about group size to get the most value from an external trainer than anything else. They are defining two distinct groups, just choosing to train them together as their needs overlap.

That’s a false equivalency.
A group for disabled women is lawful.

The equivalent would be:
A positive action programme for disabled people of all genders, and women.

Thats a lot more questionable in my eyes.

Sex not gender.

If disabled people of both sexes are under represented
and women are under represented
dealing with under representation in general would cover both.
See also ethnic minorities (just as long as they avoid the mess that is 'BAME')

And be within the law.

Interesting. My large company also has this, but also for anyone from a low socioeconomic background or non-hetero (or possibly disabled but I’m not sure on this).

In my company the stats would say women have a much better chance of succeeding than ethnic or other minorities and so I’d be a bit worried that if you’re right then it’d be the woman’s development program that was dropped.

But in my company the programme isn’t about your barriers because of your non-straight white middle class male attributes, it’s personal development training that anyone would get something out of, so we don’t need to have common issues - it’s just a way to make us better equipped in the workplace and provide an advantage to offset the systemic disadvantages.

I don't think this is affected by the supreme court ruling.

Some people are mixing it up with the rules for associations where, for example, you can have an association for disabled women - all members must be women AND disabled, but not an association for women and disabled people - all members must be women OR disabled.

The employment code of practice (which is not due for review) has a whole chapter on positive action which includes this:

12.15
More than one group with a particular protected characteristic may be
targeted by an employer, provided that for each group the employer has an
indication or evidence of disadvantage, different needs or disproportionately
low participation.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/employercode.pdf

Obviously if the positive action is based on different needs then a combined action would not be appropriate but if it's based on disadvantage or low participation then it could be.

The fox botherer is trying to claim that you could have 'trans inclusive' women's spaces as positive action but that fails because there's nothing positive about it for women!

I think as PP has said, in this case a lot depends on the nature of the programme. Is it the kind of thing where people spend time discussing the specific barriers they face or is it more skills based?

@LaundryLoop

You are correct.

Some people on here have an incorrect approach.

The EQA is all about not excluding people with a protected characteristic without a good reason.

So if you want to exclude certain groups, then the exclusive group must share a protected characteristic, that addresses a particular need or disadvantage.

The group can be about one or more protected characteristics, but if it is about more than one all members of said group have to share all the protected characteristics.

So a a group men who are over sixty would be allowed as age and sex would be engaged in order to address social exclusion.

I suppose the question is that are the two seperate groups you describe seperate in any way, if they are just conjoined by virtue of a mutual course then people excluded from this, such as disabled person, or a white male could complain that there is no legitimate aim or proportionate means to exclude them, as there is clearly characteristics that are not mutually shared within this group.

This is mixing up the rules for associations with the rules for positive action. They don't work the same.

Is it? , you still have to have a group in order to engage positive action that passes muster.

I do believe this is both WI argument in defence of including trans identifying men, and Hampstead women's pond argument.

We shall see.

I think you are wrong BTW

If you read any of the guidance of Positive Action in the work place they all stress that whatever it is that is offered relates to whatever are the common negative factors stopping someone from that protected characteristic advancing at work.

So clearly training or support for women is not going to be the same as for people, or either sex, facing racist discrimination.

The only common factor for those less likely to advance in the work place is the attitude of the dominate group ie white men.

Makes you think that the training or support or whatever would be to re-educate white men.

Positive action is allowed where there is under representation.

If the program is leadership development (ratger than peer support), then it’s a positive action to address under representation that has been identified and individuals from those groups can be offered opportunities as a positive action.

In this case the positive action is access to additional leadership development training.

It’s fine under the legislation. You might not like it, but that doesn’t make it illegal.

Yes, they all seem to be hoping positive action can be used as a loophole. I think we're all going to be learning a lot about section 158 over the coming months.

You absolutely have to consider the two groups and their needs separately.

For each group separately you have to be able to identify a disadvantage, different needs or disproportionately low participation. The positive action must then be a proportionate means of overcoming the disadvantage, meeting the different needs or increasing the participation of that group.

But if you do that analysis for one group and then do it again for the other, and your shared positive action meets the test for each group separately, then I can't see how it would be unlawful.

That's where WI, Hampstead Ladies' Pond and the fox botherer will fall down IMO - shared facilities and clubs for women + men who say they are women are not a positive action for women.

You are right. Sex is one protected characteristic, race another. So, legitimately (now and always) there can be a programme for women. There can also be a programme for ethnic minority women and a programme for ethnic minorities. So, three groups are possible. But you cannot lump 'ethnic minorities' in with 'women as a sex class' because then you have a mixed sex group rather than one prioritising women so there is no longer a 'women' group targetted. Your work place needs this explaining in words of one syllable. Or they could read the EA2010 and the SC judgement - though that might be quite difficult for them since the men you work with seem intellectually challenged!

it really does not do that.

According to Akua Reindorf (KC and EHRC commissioner) if two characteristics are used everyone must have both - so your group could be ethnic minority women but not ethnic minorities and women, which is exactly what you said. There’s an easy way round this which is to run the groups separately and it’s a worthwhile initiative.

WTF an ill-informed men-only group was doing humiliating you I do not know. So sorry this happened OP and a perfect illustration of why your company needs that course.