Senior colleague refuses to be photographed - what to do

[Waferbiscuit]

We all have be photographed for work with the photos used for internal comms including our intranet. This is a pretty standard approach in large organisations as it helps to identify people. Photos are perfectly fine, generic photos and we get to select the one that is used.

Staff member is very senior but refuses to be photographed as 'doesn't like it/doesn't feel comfortable'. May be an anxiety thing.

Can they opt out? Should this opting out be supported or is this indulgent? Seems to me part of what you sign up for when you're in a senior role.

Staff member is not part of witness protection program, doesn't work in the community and AFAIK no safeguarding or privacy issues.

I'm sure there is something in our data protection policy that says that photos of all staff will be taken and used for company communications, but I doubt any of us have read the policy, I certainly haven't. I know we have one and the compliance team maintain it and that's about it! We regularly have headshots updated when the website is refreshed, all our events have photographers, every conference and industry award dinner I go to has photographers and the whole point is for them to take your photo on stage with that tombstone so it goes out to clients the next day with your smiling face... all part of the job.

Because if you're in witness protection you wouldn't want to have a public life.

"I'm sure there is something in our data protection policy that says that photos of all staff will be taken and used for company communications"

GDPR means you have to opt in to these things so staff would have to be told about it when joining the company for it to be GDPR compliant I think. I think it's a totally different situation for ordinary staff and senior people.

It’s just not a big deal. The company logo can just be put in place of the photo.

they may change their mind once they see all the other photos up, or they may not. I’ve never really had my photo up - can’t be arsed to make the effort to get/find a decent one that I’d be happy to have on my business profiles.

And if you can't do it, then you're more suited to a back office role. There's no shame in that, it's just going to be a ceiling on your career progression if you want a senior position because you can't do large chunks of the job without being seen. And I can't imagine that standing up as constructive dismissal or discrimination, since there would be a capability issue.

I think you - and a lot of others too - are missing the point. You can carve your contracts and policies in stone on the side of a mountain, and you still can't enforce someone having their photo taken and used by the company. It's the law! Employment contracts and policies cannot override the law. You can no more include a clause on this than you could include a clause saying that only white men from good universities over the age of 50 can have senior roles in the company. A contract cannot change the law. The fact that to date it seems that nobody at your company has refused is serendipity, not precedent. And rating "whether or not we can take your photo" over "absolutely brilliant at the job" is stupid. If your company would put having a photo of someone hiding from, say, a violent abuser over the safety of an outstanding professional, then the company is insane. You can find a way around "needing" photos. You can't find a way around putting someone's life at risk, losing exceptional talent, or making someone choose between career and safety. Nobody truly knows why this person doesn't want their photo used in this way and nobody has a right to know. The OP might think they have no "good" reason, but that is guessing. As is everyone here. And what anyone thinks of the reason is irrelevant.

You don't think that "my employer refused to obey the law" would stand up in an employment tribunal? Think again. It would be a slam dunk.

Lmao, the vibes based approach to employment law. Always a winner!

I also refuse to be photographed for work (apart from my staff pass). When pushed I will admit that this has been police advice to me as I've had a stalker in the past. You'd be surprised how common this is. In my small office there are 3 of us in this position.

People have their reasons.

There are lots of blacked out headshots on Google images

@Gwenhwyfar it's probably in some of the reams of bumpf that people sign when we hire them, so the company is covered legally.

But even if everyone is signing a waiver, I guess the question is whether OP's senior colleague is entitled to refuse photos. Back in the real world, in my line of work it would be impossible to make it to the most senior levels refusing photos, even if they had a legal right to do it.

So again, in my company you could legally say no photos and opt out. But it would be career limiting as you wouldn't be able to actually then do large portions of the senior role.

But why though?

it’s a job not a cult. They don’t have to blindly agree with the policies. Lots of people don’t agree with workplace policies eg on pronouns in signatures.

Being in a senior position in a company is not a public life.

I disagree. Statistically, more women than men are victims of domestic violence, coercive control and stalking, so refusing progression to somebody because she fears being tracked down by an ex is indirectly discriminating against the protected characteristic of sex.

A person who is in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate may not want their photo online in order to avoid potential harassment or violence/being outed, so refusing progression would be indirectly discriminating against the protected characteristic of having a GRC.

A person who wishes to protect their children due to abuse being refused progression would be indirectly discriminated against for pregnancy or maternity.

A woman who is choosing to (or not) wear a Hijab could be discriminated against if she does not want anybody to see whether she is/isn't wearing one or whether she's Muslim to start with (also applies for men who wear Yarmulke or women who wear Tichel).

Somebody who is disabled might not be happy to have their photo plastered over everything - if they are visibly disabled, it could lead to people discriminating against them.

Somebody of a particular ethnicity may not want it to be known outside essential, person to person, contacts. Refusing them progression is also discriminatory.

Assuming that somebody can't possibly come under any of those categories or dismissing their rights is discriminatory.

And, seeing as it's a right through GDPR, deliberately penalising somebody for exercising their legal rights is also discrimination - plus if any of the above apply or they supported somebody else, it could also come under victimisation.

A friend is a magistrate and understandably given what she does, refuses photos of herself for public use.

My close relative was the finance director of a large company, but she had hardly any visible presence online due to a nasty ex. He would go to extraordinary lengths to get to her. Senior staff are not immune to these kinds of problems, or it may just be a personal preference. It wouldn’t be fair to ask really.

I had this exact issue at a previous company. It turned out he was a US citizen and trying to go "under the radar" and work in the UK and only pay tax in the UK. As a US citizen he should also pay tax there, which is why he didn't put the job on his LinkedIn or want a photograph published.

It isn't really any of your business if they are. Just don't take her photo and leave her alone. Weird as fuck

funnily enough I do know about GDPR but my pet hate is people who know nothing about its application in reality banging on about it

can you explain how GDpR applies to a piece of data that DOESN’T EXIST?!

It seems quite bullying behaviour to insist on this in my opinion.

The person has not sold their soul to the company after all. Your image is part of your personal information and I think it is reasonable to decline to share it at work.

Why are you so invested in pushing someone to do something that makes them uncomfortable?

You do realise that this person wouldn’t be directly sacked for this but their card would be marked and potentially the “unsuitable personality” would lead to them signing a compromise agreement and leaving that way?

don’t you see this sort of thing in your company all the time?

Yes, same where I work. They couldn't even apply.

If there are reasons why someone can't perform portions of a job because of disability or other protected characteristics then companies are expected to provide support and make reasonable adjustments. And there are some roles for which the adjustments needed would be too extensive to be reasonable for that role. In my line of work, in the most senior positions, the need to be visible and seen and out there online is so core to the job that I am finding it hard to imagine what reasonable adjustments or support could be made for the situations you describe to stay in that particular role and maintain capability.

Imagine "CEO of Aviva/HSBC/Astra zeneca" for the roles you describe and imagine someone getting to that position without ever having their photo taken. I just can't imagine it happening but I also don't think that would be grounds for a discrimination claim.

If you're the one of the public representatives of the company, it is isn't it? I presumed senior here meant right at the top.