Called to HR for behaviour at an after-work event. Thoughts, please...

[DrLoveHandles]

Name changed because this is potentially outing.

I was at an after-work reception last week. There was mingling. I mingled into a group of four colleagues. All were holding wine. I was holding orange juice.

One of the colleagues - different department, never met him before - asked "Why aren't you drinking?"
I kind of waved my hand, said "Oh, you know, reasons" and laughed. I believe this made it clear I didn't want to discuss the matter without making things awkward.
The guy then said "Intriguing, like what reasons?"

I saw red. I basically listed all the reasons why someone mightn't be drinking alcohol and told him it was inappropriate to ask. I didn't shout or swear and I wasn't overtly aggressive. But my tone was patronising and I took a very forthright kind of stance (unblinking eye contact, standing at full height, no smiles etc.). I didn't give him time to reply, I excused myself from the group and went home shortly afterwards.

Today I got an email from my line manager asking me for a meeting with her and HR people to discuss what went on. Apparently, its a matter of unprofessional behaviour.

I'm not in a union.

I've never had any dealings with HR before. I'd be really grateful to hear anyone's thoughts on this situation. I mean anything - what might happen? What I should do to prepare etc?

No, of course not. But if your new co-worker is of a different race, you ask where he’s from and he says ‘Liverpool’ then enquiring as to where he is ‘really’ or ‘originally’ from, or where his family originate from is racist.

Her sex would be clear though. And only women get pregnant and it is well known that pregnant women don’t drink. Equally if they are Chinese or East Asian origin that would be visible. And many disabilities are also visible. Your assumption that the PC is not visible is flawed. And you don’t need to have a PC in order to be discriminated against on the basis of it.

I used to write training for this kind of situation regarding behaviour at work.

His behaviour would be an example of something you absolutely aren’t supposed to do. Your behaviour (assuming you didn’t go mental) is an example of how you’d be encouraged to respond - firmly, and then walking away.

Do you all have to drive home afterwards?

Very personal and rude question to ask.
Someone pressing for personal information by pushing the request is a twat.

They could just say they don"t like the taste or effect, it is like telling someone you don"t eat fish.

Why should they have to justify their lawful (and responsible) actions in any way?

You seem hell bent on justifying the asking of personal questions.

They are not owed an explanation at all, the onus is on them is not to ask the question.

Most managers seriously policing this level of nonsense would be burned out in a year, in the real world though the OP did go mental and has been hauled into an HR meeting, no one actually knows what the man thinks or what the institution thinks of the man?

I made it clear the OP's sex would be clear. But pregnancy would come into indirect discrimination here, and may not be relevant because of the OP's obvious age, which I explained. I also made it clear I was going by what we have been told about the OP, as opposed to what we were told about the person (ie that they're black) in your scenario.

Yes if the OP was Chinese or East Asian origin that would be visible but (a) we were not told that was the case and (b) how does that automatically mean they have religious reasons for not drinking?!!! I am actually of East Asian origin myself btw so am very interested to be educated on this 😂

You don't need to have a PC in order to be discriminated against on the basis of it only if you can be perceived to have that PC. Please point me to the clauses in the EA and case law which shows you don't have to have a PC in order to be discriminated against other than on the basis of perception.

Tbf if I had been operating machinery when I could potentially still be under the influence then it would be reasonable to run to HR.

Protected characteristics don't need to be visible to be protected.

As a PS: forgot to say that association is the only other occasion where someone can be discriminated against for a PC without having that PC. But that doesn't apply to the OP's situation.

The OP sounds like one of those people who opens Facebook to “check in” at the local A&E. Only she’s taking offence to the “U ok hun?” messages she was fishing for.

Commenting on what someone is drinking is a friendly way of initiating conversation. The OP’s response “oh, reasons hehehe” didn’t shut the question down - it encouraged the conversation to continue. That’s the sort of response you might receive from a teenager trying to sound interesting.

If I was sensitive about drinking orange juice (which is odd in itself as there are non-drinkers everywhere, especially nowadays) I would simply reply “I don’t drink”. It’s easy and no one will ever think less of you.

But being rude and patronising isn’t acceptable. Even if he pissed you off, it was clearly a mistake or a foot-in-mouth moment - not worth trying to humiliate him in public over.

And stop fooling yourself: he did not complain because he was so shocked by a woman not being dainty and willowy, or standing with her feet shoulder width apart, or daring to make eye contact while she spoke her mind. He complained because you were vile, and he had every right to do so.

No but for direct discrimination as per the case of statements to the black person, the protected characteristic needs to be known or is perceived to exist.

Which is why the hypothetical situation is not the same as the OP's. That doesn't mean the OP's situation is not potentially discriminatory.

I have known at least a couple of people who sat in pubs and drank water, they got asked a lot about it, it is a natural human response to unusual behaviour when everyone around is drinking alcohol, building a little pedestal then standing on it with you glass of orange juice just waiting to be offended is just nonsense behaviour, and it hasn"t worked out very well for the OP has it? If you have serious personal reasons for not answering the questions (most people don"t) then just walk away or don"t answer them, or grow a sense of humour.

@PhaedraTwo It is hard to prove discrimination in a tribunal claim where the respondent did not know the claimant had a protected characteristic, as I'm sure you know even if it appears that you don't

The OP works in a Uni or something, they don"t operate machinery, posters are just doing any kind of mental gymnastics to avoid the reality that the OP has fucked up and been called out for it.

Commenting on what someone is drinking is a friendly way of initiating conversation

But that's not what happened. Saying something like "wow that cocktail looks amazing, what is it? " or "the sangria /mulled wine is really good isn't it" is initiating a conversation.

Demanding to know why someone isn't drinking alcohol is rude, unnecessary and intrusive. If "why are you drinking orange juice" is your opening conversational gambit you might want to work on your social skills.

Being Chinese and not drinking is nothing to do with religion! It is to do with alcohol intolerance as a result of a shortage of ALDH2 enzyme which exists in between 30 and 50% of people of Chinese, Japanese or Korean descent. Race not religion!

Oh get you. And you're wrong. Although I wasn't actually thinking about making a claim. I'm thinking about the employers' duty to ensure inclusivity, which includes not tolerating behaviour which intimidates or singles out another employee.

No, if you looked at the quoted posts you would see I was responding to a PPs hypothetical excuse for not drinking and why it would have been a bad response. Nothing to do with with OP giving a clear response to a totally inappropriate line of questioning by a colleague who was under the influence.

Though lots of university employees operate machinery.

Why do you think this bloke has any business asking why the OP was drinking orange juice? Why does he need to know that?

You can't answer that can you?

The respondent is the employer though, not the employee who did the questioning.

The fact people are regularly harassed for certain behaviours or characteristics doesn’t make it right. This was also a work event so these people were not social contacts, they were representatives of the employer. And it should raise alarm bells in the organisation if not drinking at a work event is considered unusual behaviour.

Because it stands out in a room full of drinkers and in the real world will sometimes be commented on, because he is her co-worker not some random bloke in a pub and he knows that how you get along at work is to make small talk and get to know co-workers, he knows that the way not to get along at work is to be offended by everything and end up in an HR meeting because a co-worker commented on your orange juice!