Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

LGBT

Employment and Discrimination Law

LGBT

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:10 pm

I was looking at a job earlier. Not a job I think that I want, but close enough that it was worth a look. It was for a group support worker dealing with, among others LGBT groups.
The person specification says that the applicant "must identify as LGBT". That seems to me to be an unlawful discrimination, unless I am missing something.
I know there are some exemptions with regard to gender, but I am not seeing how such an exemption could be applicable here.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10122
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: LGBT

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:58 pm

Maybe you could be moved to ask them how they are seeing that it applies. That enquiry may elicit an answer, or it may lead them to drop the requirement.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19935
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: LGBT

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:22 pm

It is a "peer support role". To be a peer, you need to have had "similar life experiences"...
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10122
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: LGBT

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:38 pm

The OP can consider schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19935
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: LGBT

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:16 pm

SCHEDULE 9. Work: exceptions
Part 1 Occupational requirements
General

1(1)A person (A) does not contravene a provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) by applying in relation to work a requirement to have a particular protected characteristic, if A shows that, having regard to the nature or context of the work—
(a)it is an occupational requirement,
(b)the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and
(c)the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).


Might fit. I would be surprised if there isn't relevant case law that makes it clear.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10122
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: LGBT

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:05 pm

The foregoing test has in the past justified compulsory retirement ages for firefighters and airline pilots.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19935
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: LGBT

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:40 pm

atticus wrote:The foregoing test has in the past justified compulsory retirement ages for firefighters and airline pilots.

I am persuaded on those points.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10122
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: LGBT

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:12 pm

so were various courts and tribunals.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19935
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: LGBT

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:38 pm

Do you think they would be persuaded by the point in question here? I am not seeing a great deal of similarity.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10122
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: LGBT

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:43 pm

I can see how a strong case could be made out. As you said, sched 9 "might fit".
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19935
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Next

Return to Employment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest